Something recently happened in England that
warrants revisiting Rachel Maddow’s (in?) famous 2010 interview with Rand Paul
concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In April of this year, Rachel Maddow also,
following Rand’s visit to Howard University, during which he answers a question
from a student with the sentence: “I do question some of the ramifications and
extensions, and I have never come out in opposition to the Civil Rights Act … I
have never questioned the Civil Rights Act”.
Rachel shows a clip of Rand’s giving that
answer and then repeats, out of context, “I have never questioned the Civil
Rights Act”. The context is important because it includes his explicit
qualification that he does question the ramifications of the act beyond race. Nevertheless,
Rachel accuses
Rand of “flat-out lying”, and to prove her point, she runs another interview
that Rand had given in 2010 with the Louisville Courier Journal News paper, which
went as follows:
LCJ: “Would you have voted for the Civil
Rights of 1964?”RP: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains. I am all in favor of that.”
LCJ: “But?”
RP: [Laughs] “You had to ask me the “but”. I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners – I abhor racism; I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant – but at the same time I do believe in private ownership.”
Cutting back to Rachel in the studio, “That
is Rand Paul, questioning the Civil Rights Act”.
She accuses Rand of having a sketchy record
on racial discrimination and civil rights law, and of being condescending in
thinking he can get away with his lie. She even displays this headline in the
New Yorker: “Rand Paul, at Howard University, Pretends He Favored the Civil
Rights Act”, to reinforce visually the idea that Rand is a) dishonest and b)
disfavors the Civil Rights Act.
That was itself dishonest, and as someone who
likes Maddow (and even has a signed copy of her book on my shelf), I am
disappointed that Rachel didn’t think so. In her interview with Rand from 2010,
Rand was clear:
“There are ten different titles to the Civil
Rights Act and nine out of ten deal with public institutions and I am
absolutely in favor of [them]. One deals with private institutions, and had I
been around, I would have tried to modify that. But the other thing about
legislation – and this is why it is a little hard to say where you are
sometimes – is that when you support nine out of ten things in a good piece of
legislation, do you vote for it or against it?”
They are not the words of a man who disfavors
the Civil Rights Act, or is trying to be dishonest about his views of it. They
are the words of a man who favors nine tenths of it and, because of his concern
for civil rights, is worried about the gutting of one principle critical to everyone’s
enjoyment of liberty – private property – to help extend the reach of another
(anti-discrimination).
… Which brings me to the recent event in
England that raises serious questions for Americans, and I think puts Rand’s
interview in an altogether more positive light.
In the UK, an elderly Christian couple, Mr
and Mrs Bull, who used to run a guesthouse, refused to offer rooms to unmarried
couples – whether gay or straight. Some time ago, a gay couple, who fell afoul
of their “no unwed couples” policy, sued them for discrimination. Britain’s
Supreme Court agreed with the offended party and fined the hoteliers thousands
of pounds, which, along with the legal fees, and the elimination of their right
to rent their rooms to whomever they wish, caused them to sell their business.
As a non-religionist, I completely disagree
with the guesthouse-owners view of sexuality and, dare I say, love. But I am
very disturbed by the use of law to punish them for following their conscience
with their own property in a way that neither did, nor intended to do, active
harm to anyone.
This incident raises a complicated moral and
societal question about which well-meaning and intelligent people can disagree.
To find answers to such questions, I often ask simply, “What would Love do?”. And I have to say that if I were denied entry
to this business (as I would be if I were with a partner as I am not married),
I would probably pity this couple for their views, and I might even tell them
so, but Love would require me to respect where they are on their spiritual
journey, and know that they were not seeking to hurt me. I wouldn’t feel that I
had a right to use the force of the state against them, nor would I want to.
As I read, Rand’s interview with Rachel
Maddow came immediately to mind. For what happened to Mr and Mrs Bull is the
very consequence of the concession of the principle of private property that
Rand was so concerned about.
Source: Ben Swann, by Robin Koerner, 12/6/13 http://benswann.com/rand-paul-is-right-civil-rights-arent-simple-rights/#ixzz2mnQ9C3vI
Comments:
Property Rights should be restored by
amending our Civil Rights Act to disallow law suits. The inclusion of alternate lifestyles as a “protected
group” goes over the line. I believe
these are not unintended consequences. These are Communists using the law to erode
property rights and freedom of association.
The Act poses a real danger to the concept of property rights and will
continue to cause resentment. I think, sooner
or later, juries would tire of political correctness, rebel and vote the other
way. It would be wise to fix this
problem in the law before a jury has to decide if a pedophile was discriminated
against by a daycare center. I would
redefine social justice as my right to ignore people I don’t like.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party
No comments:
Post a Comment