Ron Paul: Sexual harassment victims bear responsibility for resolution

Ron Paul's position on sexual harassment in the workplace is incredible. He states that the victim of such harassment bears some responsibility and should quit their job if they want to stop the harassment. Furthermore, he states that the federal government should take no part in legislating against sexual harassment in the workplace.

Another reason not to vote for Ron Paul.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politi...-resolution/fyCUfBYPwVLj4eLcE4YnPI/index.html

 

As if we needed another reason.

 

Sounds like he is stuck in the dark ages like the rest of the candidates. What a pathetic thing to say! If you are being bullied at work, its the employers job to put a stop to it, not the person being harassed!

 

I completely agree Make. It's ridiculous to suggest that the victim of sexual harassment is somehow partially responsible for the harassment and that they should quit their job if they don't like such behavior. And since most sexual harassment targets women one could argue that Paul is favoring sexual discrimination in employment.

 

When I have a problem at the work place I just quit and find a new job, but then I dont need my hand held by the government from cradle to grave, I unlike my republican and democrat friends, can take care of myself.

 

I don't quite understand the problem... He spoke against the Federal Government getting involved and is asking for State/Local Governments to handle it. He is simply saying there is no right for the Federal Government to take action in such incidents because the Federal Government doesn't have the Authority to do so. It's not as if he is saying there should be rampant harassment... God (*)(*)(*)(*) try actually reading the keywords please.

 

Exactly this...

 

U are making too much sense, something a lot of people dont like

 

Unlike you, most people don't quit their jobs because they can't, and quitting a job too many times will make you unemployable.

 

Typical Ron Paul slander, spin the truth and spam the spin.

 

The truth about your living god of libertopianism hurts, doesn't it laddie. It must be difficult for you finding out that the man who in your eyes can do no wrong has made a complete fool out of himself in this instance.

 

Federal vs. State/Local

You need to read the article better and his choice of words so you no longer get the misconception that he wants rampant harassment.

 

I don't want to bump this but he's already clarified the misunderstanding with this statement with Chris Wallace:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDk1_JApggk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDk1_JApggk[/ame]

He is saying that if it is harmless jokes then the woman should just considering switching jobs and no Federal involvement would be necessary.

If physical violence is involved then even then no federal involvement is necessary. In that case then the local law enforcement should get involved.

I agree with this. Don't you OP?

 

I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul in that these things should not be the federal government's problem, but rather a state issue or a company issue. Why should the government waste its resources towards dumb crap like this? We're all adults aren't we??

Same with gay marriage, drugs, etc. These are not our nation's priority right now. Should we be more worried about whether Steve should be able to marry Joe, or should we pay a little more attention to the national debt, our unnecessary international involvements, and the corruption committed by financial institutions at the expense of you and me??

 

I agree with him.

Nobody, no matter how sick, has an entitlement to my money. That is what charities are for.

And individual companies have enough rules of their own against harassment. It would be much better if such matters were handled internally at these businesses. Go tell your boss if you have been offended. If he doesn't care, go tell his boss. If the whole company is against you make it public that your employer supports sexual harassment. No company likes bad press.

I don't think the government should decide what is offensive. Leave that up to the employers. If you work at a Hustler store, you shouldn't be able to sue a coworker for waving dildos around and cracking jokes. If you are too stuck up to put up with that, go work at bed bath and beyond.

 

You got issues man. Why not deal in actual facts. Stop pissing on people you don't agree with. Use logic to find fallacies in Ron Paul's platform and strengths in Obamittorum's platforms.

 

So what happens when the violation, or jokes as Ron Paul would say, occurs in the federal workplace? Or what happens if the sexual harrassment, ie the hostile workplace, violates their Constitutional right of privacy when the joke happens to videotape the opposite sex's laboratory?

In some cases, the hostile work environment, IMO, has gone overboard such as the 9th Circuit's ruling that a radio program from a conservative commentator was considered "sexual harrassment." But in other instances, a hostil work enviornment can be a legitimate. What Ron Paul is doing is trying to limit federal judicial power that he believes is too powerful. That is a wrong assumption.

 

You can't ber serious?

 

in this case, I don't think he's trying to limit judicial power. He's clearing the slate for the judicial system to attend to more serious matters. It takes a real piece of work to think that sexual harassment is a legitimate problem in this country. If a guy is being a scumbag, fire him, and when he's interviewing with other employers, they're going to ask him why he left his previous job. Karma will take care of him sooner or later. Look at Herman Cain.


Also, it makes no difference whether it's a federal workplace or starbucks. If you behave like a d*ck, you get treated like one. Simple as that; what's so hard to understand?

 

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say the federal govt has the power to stop sexual harassment?

 

eh, his opinion on that might suck, but he's still better than all these destructive corporate thugs that wanna be the prez next year. I'd rather people have to deal with "harassment" at work than suffer the economic consequences of criminals in the white house. Seriously.

 

Have you ever had to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace? It's incredibly destructive to both the victim and the overall moral of other employees. To even suggest that the victim of sexual harassment should compund their fear and anxiety by quitting their job is absolutely ridiculous.

 

yeah. And that's much worse than the Big Tyrannical Police and Military State ROBBING and MAIMING us daily.

And of course, Paul totally said that sexual harassment should be legalized. He totally didn't mean that it should simply be enforced by the state rather than the Federal government.

 

The Federal government does not exist to hold your hand.

 

Really? Where are you robbed and maimed daily?

Paul made the assinine suggestion that the victim of sexual harassment is partially responsible for it and should quite their job as a remedy.