Ron Paul Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal

[bobalot]

On Fox News Sunday Ron Paul upped the ante on his opposition to sexual harassment laws by claiming that there should be no federal laws against sexual harassment.

WALLACE: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry but we have limited time and we want to get to the other two candidates as well. I want to ask you about one other thing that you wrote back in your book in 1987 about sexual harassment in the workplace.

You wrote this, “Why don’t” — this is about the victims of sexual harassment. “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously, the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?”

You said that sexual harassment should not be a violation of someone’s employment rights?

PAUL: Well, the whole thing is, is you have to get a better definition of sexual harassment. If it’s just because somebody told the joke and somebody was offended, they don’t have a right to go to the federal government and have a policeman to come in and put penalties on those individuals. I mean, they have to say, well, maybe this is not a very good environment, and they have the right to work there or not there.

But if sexual harassment involves violence as libertarians, we are very opposed to any violence. So, if there is any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment. You just need to call the policeman and say there’s been an assault or there’s been attempted rape or something.

So, you have to separate those two out. But because people are insulted by, you know, rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that and people should deal with that at home.

Paul has held these views on sexual harassment laws for decades, but it wasn’t until he went from a fringe player to top tier Iowa candidate that anyone bothered to do even the most basic vetting of this candidate.

What Ron Paul was saying here is that there should not be any federal laws against sexual harassment. There should not be any civil rights protections for women and some men in the workplace. In other words, sexual harassment should be legal. Rep. Paul’s statements today reflect his ideology taken to its logical conclusions. I have praised Ron Paul in the Republican debates for his consistency, but we should not mistake consistency for a rigid ideological inflexibility that promotes a decision making process where details and circumstances don’t matter. In the mind of Ron Paul, the ideology must be adhered to at all times.

There should be no federal laws against sexual harassment. This is what voters are getting if they vote for Ron Paul. Rep. Paul has been moving up in Iowa, because this extremist message appeals to the very very conservative caucus goers. Democrats who are tempted to support Paul need to realize that no matter how tempting his foreign policy is, Ron Paul makes George W. Bush look like an enlightened an open minded thinker.

In a year when many in the Republican base are desperately searching for an extremist candidate, Ron Paul represents a kind of ideological purity and simplicity that for them is as addictive as crack.

Paul’s position on sexual harassment in the work place could also extend to other forms of discrimination. If Paul doesn’t believe in sexual harassment laws, then he probably doesn’t believe in the other civil rights laws that prevent discrimination based on race, color, age, sex, creed, and disability. Ron Paul believes the market should be left alone at all times, and this includes allowing employers to freely discriminate.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for sexual harassment. Something tells me this isn’t the kind of bumper sticker that the Republican Party wants to see.

Source

It's amazing that Ron Paul thinks anything less than physical violence is acceptable in the workplace.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It's amazing that Ron Paul actually thinks the police come out for workplace sexual harassment. No, Ron. Your ass just gets fired.

[bobalot]

Harassment is generally defined in state law anyway.

So what? Ron Paul's beliefs are still retarded.

Basically what you saying is even if Ron Paul were to implement his ideas, the shittiness of his ideas would be mitigated to an extent. Wow, that's awesome.

[Lagmonster]

He's consistent, at least. He believes that the employer can create whatever environment for workers that he wants, so long as nobody is injured or harmed. It's not a downright loony proposition, but you kids need to remember that it's not a simple issue. We've been working at integrating women into the traditionally male workforce for only a generation, and the results have ranged from astounding to fucked up.

[Broomstick]

He's consistent, at least. He believes that the employer can create whatever environment for workers that he wants, so long as nobody is injured or harmed.

The problem is, in part, how you define "injured or harmed". Many women say sexual harassment is injurious or harmful. He obviously doesn't think it is.

[Solauren]

He's consistent, at least. He believes that the employer can create whatever environment for workers that he wants, so long as nobody is injured or harmed.

The problem is, in part, how you define "injured or harmed". Many women say sexual harassment is injurious or harmful. He obviously doesn't think it is.

Isn't he also one of those 'suck it up and let it make you tougher' types?

[Broken]

Not being a Republican, I only had a general overview in my head of Ron Paul and his loony libertarian ideology. I knew he was kooky and his ideas unworkable, but that he was consistent and always said what he thought, not what would make him popular with his peers in Washington. But now, the more details and specifics I learn about him, the less I like Ron Paul.

[DPDarkPrimus]

He's consistent, at least. He believes that the employer can create whatever environment for workers that he wants, so long as nobody is injured or harmed.

The problem is, in part, how you define "injured or harmed". Many women say sexual harassment is injurious or harmful. He obviously doesn't think it is.

Well, he probably thinks anyone who can get hurt by some harsh language needs to man up.

[LaCroix]

That's gotta change. To promote maximum liberty and free market competition, I think the following things are necessary:

1) A basic income needs to be provided independently of any job. Guaranteed income for all citizens, given at all times. If your lose your job, you shouldn't risk nor have any delay in your baseline living.

2) Medicare for All. Let's get healthcare out of the hands of business. The insurance companies can burn in hell, and it should have no ties whatsoever to employment.

And these will be achieved by voting Ron Paul? How exactly?
All his agendas would put your wish-list even further out of reach...

[aerius]

He didn't actually say any of this at all. "Well, the whole thing is, is you have to get a better definition of sexual harassment." and "I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with [rude behavior] and people should deal with that at home."

That's not remotely the same as "it shouldn't be illegal" or even "there should not be any federal laws against sexual harassment", like the dishonest author of your link said.

That's the same interpretation I have of Ron Paul's comments. There's a difference between cracking a joke like "why did the blonde write TGIF on her shoes? To remember that toes go in front" and going around telling everyone that your co-worker is a slut and doing hip thrusts and grabbing her ass every time you see her. And until we get a clear definition of what is and isn't sexual harassment we shouldn't be dicking around with the laws and causing a bunch of unintended consequences. I tend to agree with him, because you know that in America, there will be abuses everywhere unless everything is laid out in black & white.

[Eternal_Freedom]

He didn't actually say any of this at all. "Well, the whole thing is, is you have to get a better definition of sexual harassment." and "I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with [rude behavior] and people should deal with that at home."

That's not remotely the same as "it shouldn't be illegal" or even "there should not be any federal laws against sexual harassment", like the dishonest author of your link said.

That's the same interpretation I have of Ron Paul's comments. There's a difference between cracking a joke like "why did the blonde write TGIF on her shoes? To remember that toes go in front" and going around telling everyone that your co-worker is a slut and doing hip thrusts and grabbing her ass every time you see her. And until we get a clear definition of what is and isn't sexual harassment we shouldn't be dicking around with the laws and causing a bunch of unintended consequences. I tend to agree with him, because you know that in America, there will be abuses everywhere unless everything is laid out in black & white.

Same here. I can't see how anyone but a heavily biased person could read "I don't think we need federal laws for this" and jump to "This guy says sexual harassmanet should be legal!"

I mean seriously wtf? Bobalot, we get that you don't like this guy, but at least be honest about what he says.

[Simon_Jester]

At that level it comes down to what Ron Paul thinks is 'just horsing around' and what he thinks is violence to be punished by state laws against violence. If he's saying the laws already on the books cover it, he probably means outright assault and battery. Which means guys making pelvic thrusts and endlessly hitting on women in their workplace might not qualify.


Hm.

I just had a random thought. The social mores of "everyone needs to toughen up and learn to ignore verbal hazing" date back to a time when things like alcoholism were winked and nodded at more often, and when people were far more likely to temporarily or permanently retire from social and public life for reasons we would now call mental health.

Maybe there's a correlation there...

[Gerald Tarrant]

At that level it comes down to what Ron Paul thinks is 'just horsing around' and what he thinks is violence to be punished by state laws against violence. If he's saying the laws already on the books cover it, he probably means outright assault and battery. Which means guys making pelvic thrusts and endlessly hitting on women in their workplace might not qualify.

In the quote from Paul he makes it a point over and over again to say it's not a Federal issue. I'm curious how you drew the conclusion that he thinks it's not a state or local issue? Every single paragraph had him decrying Federal involvement. Can you show that he hates all government involvement? I'd really like to see those quotes. See below, notice how the government action he's talking against is FEDERAL.

they don’t have a right to go to the federal government and have a policeman to come in and put penalties on those individuals. I mean, they have to say, well, maybe this is not a very good environment, and they have the right to work there or not there.

But if sexual harassment involves violence as libertarians, we are very opposed to any violence. So, if there is any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment. You just need to call the policeman and say there’s been an assault or there’s been attempted rape or something.

So, you have to separate those two out. But because people are insulted by, you know, rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that and people should deal with that at home.

I think this is more a case of Ron Paul favoring a more narrow reading of what the Federal Government is allowed to do(see both enumerated powers of Congress, and the 10th amendment of the US Constitution) which opens up its own set of criticisms.

[Simon_Jester]

At that level it comes down to what Ron Paul thinks is 'just horsing around' and what he thinks is violence to be punished by state laws against violence. If he's saying the laws already on the books cover it, he probably means outright assault and battery. Which means guys making pelvic thrusts and endlessly hitting on women in their workplace might not qualify.

In the quote from Paul he makes it a point over and over again to say it's not a Federal issue. I'm curious how you drew the conclusion that he thinks it's not a state or local issue? Every single paragraph had him decrying Federal involvement. Can you show that he hates all government involvement? I'd really like to see those quotes. See below, notice how the government action he's talking against is FEDERAL.

My point is that we start with:

"If sexual harassment involves violence... call the policeman and say there's been [a violent crime]."

So basically, he's all in favor of 'sexual harassment' (a broad term) being punished if it becomes openly violent- "boss backs data entry clerk into corner and ravishes her" would fall under rape and assault and so on, which are state crimes.

Now, we move on to, say, pelvic thrusts and constantly belittling someone and so on- is there a state law about this? Is there not? Ron Paul basically says it's none of the federal government's business... and a quick check suggests that a majority of the states have no sexual harassment laws on the books, apart from existing statutes about assault, rape, and so on.

So what does he think states should do? I get that he's opposed to federal involvement, but he's not a cretin, surely he has an opinion on what the state-level legal regime ought to mandate, even if he doesn't want to enforce it on the states.

Now, insofar as Ron Paul prescribes anything as a response to sexual harassment short of violent assault in the passage in question:

"I mean, they have to say, well, maybe this is not a very good environment, and they have the right to work there or not there."

Which, as far as I can translate it, would mean the response to sexual harassment is to quit. Legal recourse is a non-starter; if a state wants to enforce it they can (they can even violate federal constitutional rights to do so), but there's no obligation and it's totally acceptable for a state's legal position on sexual harassment in the workplace to be "if you don't like it, you have the right to quit." Oh gee. That sounds so practical...


If you want me to come away with some other interpretation of Ron Paul's position, of what his ideal world would look like in terms of facts on the ground, not just abstractions about federal power, then please enlighten me.

[bobalot]

Basically what you saying is even if Ron Paul were to implement his ideas, the shittiness of his ideas would be mitigated to an extent. Wow, that's awesome.

He didn't actually say any of this at all. "Well, the whole thing is, is you have to get a better definition of sexual harassment." and "I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with [rude behavior] and people should deal with that at home."

That's not remotely the same as "it shouldn't be illegal" or even "there should not be any federal laws against sexual harassment", like the dishonest author of your link said.

You are wrong. That is exactly what he has been saying for years. He has said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act (which Sexual Discrimination is covered under Title VII).

And strangely enough, nowhere in his responses does he even refer to state laws. He quite simply states he considers that anything less than actual physical harm is not sexual harassment.

1) What I'm saying is state laws already define harassment, so you don't need federal laws on top of that. There's nothing about mitigating, it's just about the idea being utterly pointless.

Unless a a regressive state were to water down their sexual harassment laws. Of course, America has no regressive backward states.

More broadly, Ron Paul believes that States (and therefore private companies) should be able to discriminate on sexual preference and even introduced a Bill (H.R.539) which would constrain the Cupreme Court from acting. Of course, no state would ever allow employment discrimination on sex or sexual preference.

2) What Congressman Paul is saying is he thinks the legal line may be drawn in the wrong place. He doesn't think the law should get into rude behavior.... and if you ask me, that makes sense!

When has the Civil Rights Act used as a sledgehammer against "rude behaviour"? Explain provide an example of this occurring, otherwise this appears to be massive strawman that Ron Paul has constructed to defend his position.

When in doubt when crafting laws, it's probably better to err on the side of liberty.

Why is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against liberty? Please explain this statement.

If you aren't sure if this is a real problem or not, it's best to not ban it and see if people can work it out on smaller scales - the states or the individuals.

Except out in the real world (not Libertarian Fantasy Land, where Ron Paul seems to reside), we do know that it is a real problem. Discrimination on sex, race and sexuality is still a significant problem today.

He thinks some things that are defined as sexual harassment today fall into that: a bad joke might simply be a bad joke, and you don't need the government coming in to police that, especially not the fucking Federal government!

1) Give an example of where this has occurred.
2) Why shouldn't the Federal Government protect somebody's Civil Rights?

I like how people have run with this "LOLZ Sexual harassment! We just need CLARIFICATION between a JOKE and REAL HARASSMENT" as if this is some new pressing issue and that judges who interpret the Civil Rights Act won't be able to tell the difference. The argument reeks of desperation.

[bobalot]

I mean seriously wtf? Bobalot, we get that you don't like this guy, but at least be honest about what he says.

He believes it shouldn't be illegal from on a Federal level. Would you like to nitpick some more?

In fact, he doesn't even bother mention anything about the state level (which has it's own problems, why should people's civil rights vary from State to State?). Why shouldn't the Civil Rights Act be applied Federally and every man, women and child be covered by its protections?

You can see in his later explanation, he only considers something as sexual harassment if it involves violence. Truly astonishing.

On a different tangent, I like how people claim Ron Paul only wants to devolve everything to the States, even though he has twice introduced "The Sanctity of Life Act" which federalizes abortion as murder.

[bobalot]

why should people's civil rights vary from State to State?

That's not the question. The question is: why should one sovereign entity be able to force it's will on another sovereign entity?

Could you clarify?

[Panzersharkcat]

The American states are technically supposed to be sovereign entities banding together in common defense and trade. The original preamble said "We the States" rather than "We the People" to reflect that but, if I remember correctly, they didn't want to assume all the states would automatically ratify the Constitution. Vermont didn't ratify until 1791 and it was an independent state until it did so. Even now, American states have a higher degree of autonomy than most countries' provinces.

[bobalot]

The American states are technically supposed to be sovereign entities banding together in common defense and trade. The original preamble said "We the States" rather than "We the People" to reflect that but, if I remember correctly, they didn't want to assume all the states would automatically ratify the Constitution. Vermont didn't ratify until 1791 and it was an independent state until it did so. Even now, American states have a higher degree of autonomy than most countries' provinces.

Your point being? They cannot override the Supreme Court (unless Ron Paul were to get his way).

[bobalot]

The US federal government is another government on top of the individual states, and the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

They got together and said we'll give up some of our individual rights to form this greater whole, but they didn't give up all those rights.

What rights have they "given up" in this case?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional?

[Simon_Jester]

No, he is not misrepresenting.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Key point there is 1A: "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." Congress declaring that human life exists from conception means that for purposes of federal statutes, abortion is murder.

Then, of course, we run into the supremacy clause of the Constitution of the United States:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

So if Congress says human life begins at conception, then legally in the US it damn well does, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." At which point the states are basically required to start prosecuting abortions as murders.

To reject this interpretation pretty much requires that we retcon the supremacy clause out of the Constitution. We could do that, and I suspect Ron Paul would be amenable to doing so... but he has proposed this bill at a time when the supremacy clause is still in force, and the letter of the law must be interpreted accordingly. If he really wanted the states to be free to decide whether or not abortion is murder, he should either have rewritten his bill accordingly, or he should have waited until after he'd managed to get the supremacy clause repealed.

Because under the supremacy clause, if that bill passed, abortion would indeed be murder.

What rights have they "given up" in this case?

The right to define their own citizenship and the right to make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; and the right to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and finally, the right to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I would argue that the states have no legitimate 'right' to do any such thing, any more than I have a 'right' to own a man as my property and subject him to arbitrary tyranny that strips him of his rights.

I do not and cannot have a "right" to override the "rights" of others in the normal sense of the word. Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose. The state's right to swing its arm ends at my nose too, except where due processes of law are concerned.

But, another thing you'll notice in that document: anything they didn't surrender explictly is reserved for themselves.

Yes, and when the Constitution is amended, the states may explicitly surrender further powers to the federal government. That is what an amendment is, you see. The states even get a vote in this surrender, unlike the slaves of 1861.

What I'm talking about here is a more fundamental issue: from where do governments derive their power? In the US, it's commonly "from the consent of the governed" (unless the governed don't want to consent anymore, then it comes from military might, law be damned, such as what happened in 1860).

In 1860, some of the governed wanted to maintain the right to oppress some of the other governed. They wanted this very badly, and voted to abandon a government that they feared might stop letting them oppress other people.

The slaves, of course, were not given a vote in this matter.

Which makes the idea of 'consent' a cruel farce. The federal government had lost the consent of a fraction of the governed, because that fraction wanted to be sure it could continue to ignore the consent of the governed.

You can fight for freedom, or you can fight to impose tyranny. You cannot do both. The southern states made it very plain they were fighting for tyranny.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Let's say, hypothetically, Canada wanted to oppress people in Quebec. Would the United States be justified to invade them and force change?

Quebec is not part of the United States, it's not a sovereign nation in a military alliance with the United States that says "If X nation attacks us come to our aid".

Commonwealth Canada invading/oppressing Quebec /= United States attacking the CSA.

[Patrick Degan]

In 1860, some of the governed wanted to maintain the right to oppress some of the other governed.

I'm not saying they were in the right, but two wrongs don't make one either.

The states never had a right to secede from the Union, and the Federal Government does have the right to put down rebellion against the lawful authority of the Constitution.

[bobalot]

EDIT: I had constructed a response, but I realised I was just reiterating the points that Simon_Jester had responded with (and his responses had far more depth), so I have removed this post.

[Broomstick]

The US federal government is another government on top of the individual states, and the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

They got together and said we'll give up some of our individual rights to form this greater whole, but they didn't give up all those rights.

What rights have they "given up" in this case?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional?

Believe it or not, there actually are Americans who argue exactly that - that the CRA of '64 was the Federal government overstepping and infringing on the power of the States. Those people argue the CRA is unconstitutional and should be abolished.

I don't agree with them, but they unquestionably exist.

The basis of their arguments is not something I want to attempt to detail because, first of all, I'm tired and I'll probably screw it up just due to that, and because I so very much disagree with that stance that it's hard for me to accurately convey their viewpoint. Historically, it was the Southern Democrats who most strongly opposed it at the time of passage, particularly Senators Eastland of Mississippi and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Given that Thurmond once ran for US president in the "Dixiecrat" party that openly supported segregation, well, it's basically "we want the Feds to stay out of our business so we can run things the way we like and shit on whomever we want".