Rick Perry goes in hard at his first presidential debate

"Maybe it's time to have provocative language in this country."

Rick Perry, the Texas governor, made his debut appearance in a presidential debate last night - and he went in hard, defying those who had predicted he would seek a quiet, safe approach.

From the word go, Perry went for Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. The collision between the two dominated the 105-minute debate, appearing to confirm that these two are the frontrunners, as the other six candidates remained on the sidelines.

The strategy seems to have worked, with Perry almost instantly over-taking Romney in the opinion polls. But did he go a step too far with his comments on social security?

His views on the issue have long been seen as potentially damaging in the context of a general election, but Perry refused to back down on the matter, saying:

You cannot keep the status quo in place and call it anything other than a Ponzi scheme

Romney pointed out that Karl Rove, Perry's former adviser, said that language would be "toxic" in a general election, to which Perry replied:

You know, Karl has been over the top for a long time in some of his remarks. So I'm not responsible for Karl anymore.

Romney's campaign has gone hard on the social security question, firing off an email headlined "Perry Does Not Believe Social Security Should Exist," backed up with multiple quotes.

In this debate, Perry proved himself to be a serious and credible candidate, although Romney may still have broader appeal. Over at the Washington Post, Michael Gerson writes that Romney "seemed more electable than anyone else on the stage".

However, there were some alarming reminders of how far the parameters of this contest have shifted to the right. At one point, the moderator, Brian Williams, said to Perry: "Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times." The audience interrupted with a spontaneous burst of applause. Williams continued with: "Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent?" Perry's response? "No sir. I've never struggled with that at all."

As American politics becomes more partisan, and rhetoric more heated than ever, the Republican primary is perhaps not the place to look to for restraint. Asked at one point if he wanted to reconsider his language, Perry said:

Maybe it's time to have provocative language in this country.

The Tea Party certainly agrees; it remains to be seen whether the majority of GOP voters do too.

 

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

France’s burkini ban could not come at a worse time

Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

Since mayor of Cannes David Lisnard banned the full-body burkini from his town’s beaches, as many as 15 French resorts have followed suit. Arguments defending the bans fall into three main categories. First, it is about defending the French state’s secularism (laïcité). Second, that the costume represents a misogynistic doctrine that sees female bodies as shameful. And finally, that the burkini is cited as a threat to public order.

None of these arguments satisfactorily refute the claims of civil rights activists that the bans are fundamentally Islamophobic.

The niceties of laïcité

The Cannes decree explicitly invokes secular values. It prohibits anyone “not dressed in a fashion respectful of laïcité” from accessing public beaches. However, the French state has only banned “ostentatious” religious symbols in schools and for government employees as part of laïcité (the strict separation between the state and religious society). And in public spaces, laïcité claims to respect religious plurality. Indeed, the Laïcité Commission has tweeted that the ban, therefore, “cannot be based upon the principle of laïcité”.

While veils covering the entire face such as the burqa or niqab are illegal, this is not to protect laïcité; it is a security matter. The legal justification is that these clothes make it impossible to identify the person underneath – which is not the case for the burkini.

 

By falling back on laïcité to police Muslim women in this way, the Cannes authorities are fuelling the argument that “fundamentalist secularism” has become a means of excluding Muslims from French society.

Colonial attitudes

Others, such as Laurence Rossignol, the minister for women’s rights, hold that the burkini represents a “profoundly archaic view of a woman’s place in society”, disregarding Muslim women who claim to wear their burkini voluntarily.

This typifies an enduring colonial attitude among many non-Muslim French politicians, who feel entitled to dictate to Muslim women what is in their best interests. Rossignol has in the past compared women who wear headscarves through choice to American “negroes” who supported slavery.

Far from supporting women’s rights, banning the burkini will only leave the women who wear it feeling persecuted. Even those with no choice in the matter are not helped by the ban. This legal measure does nothing to challenge patriarchal authority over female bodies in the home. Instead, it further restricts the lives of veiled women by replacing it with state authority in public.

Open Islamophobia

Supporters of the ban have also claimed that, with racial tensions high after recent terrorist attacks, it is provocative to wear this form of Muslim clothing. Such an argument was made by Pierre-Ange Vivoni, mayor of Sisco in Corsica, when he banned the burkini in his commune. Early reports suggested a violent clash between local residents and non-locals of Moroccan origin was triggered when strangers photographed a burkini-wearing woman in the latter group, which angered her male companions. Vivoni claimed that banning the costume protected the security of local people, including those of North African descent.

Those reports have transpired to be false: none of the women in question were even wearing a burkini at the time of the incident. Nonetheless, the ban has stood in Sisco and elsewhere.

To be “provoked” by the burkini is to be provoked by the visibility of Muslims. Banning it on this basis punishes Muslim women for other people’s prejudice. It also disregards the burkini’s potential to promote social cohesion by giving veiled women access to the same spaces as their non-Muslim compatriots.

Appeals to public order have, occasionally, been openly Islamophobic. Thierry Migoule, head of municipal services in Cannes, claimed that the burkini “refers to an allegiance to terrorist movements”, conveniently ignoring the Muslim victims of recent attacks. Barely a month after Muslims paying their respects to friends and family killed in Nice were racially abused, such comments are both distasteful and irresponsible.

Increased divisions

Feiza Ben Mohammed, spokesperson for the Federation of Southern Muslims, fears that stigmatising Muslims in this way will play into the hands of IS recruiters. That fear seems well-founded: researchers cite a sense of exclusion as a factor behind the radicalisation of a minority of French Muslims. Measures like this can only exacerbate that problem. Indeed, provoking repressive measures against European Muslims to cultivate such a sentiment is part of the IS strategy.

Meanwhile, the day after the incident in Sisco, riot police were needed in nearby Bastia to prevent a 200-strong crowd chanting “this is our home” from entering a neighbourhood with many residents of North African descent. Given the recent warning from France’s head of internal security of the risk of a confrontation between “the extreme right and the Muslim world”, such scenes are equally concerning.

Now more than ever, France needs unity. Yet more legislation against veiled women can only further divide an already divided nation.

The Conversation

Fraser McQueen, PhD Candidate, University of Stirling

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.