Algeria bill seeks to criminalise French colonial rule: What to know  - Dominica Gazette – Dominica &. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant context or perspectives that would help readers fully understand the issue.

The article quotes at length from Algerian Speaker Ibrahim Boughali and describes the bill’s aims and moral framing, but the French side is represented only by older Macron quotes about not apologising and a note that the government has not yet responded. There is no mention of any current French parliamentary, academic, or civil-society reactions to the bill, nor any legal or diplomatic analysis of potential consequences. This creates an imbalance: the Algerian rationale and narrative are detailed, while the French position on this specific bill and broader debates within France about colonial memory are largely absent.

3 suggestions

Add current French government or parliamentary reactions to the specific draft law, if available, or explicitly state that no official reaction has been issued as of a certain date and that outreach for comment was made.

Include perspectives from French historians, legal experts, or civil-society groups on the proposed criminalisation of colonial rule and its implications for bilateral relations and international law.

Briefly mention any existing French initiatives on colonial memory (e.g., prior reports, commemorations, archives access) to contextualise Macron’s refusal to apologise within a broader policy landscape.

Selective use of sources

Relying on a narrow set of sources that systematically favour one side’s framing.

The article relies heavily on Algerian institutional sources (People’s National Assembly, Speaker Ibrahim Boughali, Algerian-aligned framing of Western Sahara) and on secondary reporting from Anadolu, AL24 News, AFP. The French side is represented almost exclusively by a single actor (President Macron) and a single 2023 interview, with no diversity of French viewpoints. This can subtly privilege the Algerian narrative by giving it more voices and more recent, detailed statements, while the French perspective appears static and thinly sourced.

3 suggestions

Incorporate quotes or summaries from multiple French actors (e.g., foreign ministry spokesperson, opposition politicians, French-Algerian community representatives) to diversify the French perspective.

Balance Algerian-aligned descriptions of Western Sahara (e.g., ‘annexed by Morocco’) with how Morocco and some international actors describe the situation, clearly attributing each framing.

Explicitly note when information comes from state-linked or regional outlets (e.g., ‘according to Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency’ or ‘Algerian public broadcaster AL24 News’) and, where possible, complement them with independent or international expert sources.

Biased language

Use of value-laden or emotionally charged terms that implicitly endorse one side’s narrative.

Phrases such as ‘France ruled Algeria from 1830 until being driven out as a colonial power in a brutal war of independence’ and ‘French forces accused of gross human rights violations and war crimes, including systematic torture, summary executions and enforced disappearances’ are strong. While these characterisations are widely supported by historical research and partially acknowledged by France, the article does not consistently attribute them to specific sources (e.g., historians, human rights reports) in the same sentence. Similarly, ‘Western Sahara has witnessed armed rebellion since it was annexed by Morocco after the colonial power, Spain, left the territory in 1975’ uses ‘annexed’ as a factual descriptor without clarifying that this is a contested legal and political characterisation, even though it aligns with Algeria’s and the Polisario Front’s view.

3 suggestions

Where using strong evaluative terms (e.g., ‘brutal war’, ‘gross human rights violations’, ‘war crimes’), explicitly attribute them to recognised sources: ‘Historians and human rights organisations describe the conflict as a brutal war of independence…’ or ‘French forces have been accused by [specific organisations or commissions] of…’.

For Western Sahara, clarify the contested nature of the term ‘annexed’: e.g., ‘…after Morocco took control of most of the territory, a move described by critics and many international observers as an annexation, which Morocco disputes.’

Maintain a consistent pattern of attribution when describing alleged crimes or legal characterisations, to distinguish reported facts, legal findings, and widely held interpretations from the outlet’s own voice.

Unbalanced reporting

Providing more space, detail, or sympathetic framing to one side than to others.

The Algerian side is given detailed explanation of motives and moral framing: ‘It is a supreme act of sovereignty, a clear moral stance, and an unambiguous political message…’, ‘aimed at breaking the will of the Algerian people, erasing their identity, and severing their ties to their … roots.’ These are quoted at length and presented without counter-argument or contextual commentary. By contrast, the French side is limited to Macron’s refusal to apologise and his general comments on ‘work on memory and history’, with no exploration of French legal or political arguments against criminalisation, nor any French concerns about retroactive legislation, diplomatic fallout, or domestic debates. This asymmetry makes the Algerian framing more vivid and persuasive by sheer volume and detail.

3 suggestions

Add French or independent legal experts’ views on the implications of criminalising colonial rule, including potential concerns about retroactivity, diplomatic norms, or freedom of expression.

Include any French arguments about existing reconciliation efforts (e.g., opening archives, prior acknowledgements of abuses) to balance the Algerian claim that the bill is necessary for ‘historical justice’.

Shorten or summarise some of the more rhetorical Algerian quotes, or pair them with analytical context that clarifies they represent a political position rather than uncontested fact.

Oversimplification

Reducing complex historical or legal issues to brief statements that may omit important nuance.

The article states: ‘French colonial rule in Algeria lasted for more than 130 years, which was marked by torture, enforced disappearances, massacres, economic exploitation and marginalisation of the Indigenous Muslim population.’ While broadly consistent with historical scholarship, this compresses a long and complex period into a single, uniformly negative characterisation without indicating variation over time, different policies, or internal French debates. Similarly, the Western Sahara section summarises a decades-long, legally complex conflict in a few lines, which may leave readers with an incomplete understanding of the range of international positions and UN processes involved.

3 suggestions

Add a brief clause acknowledging complexity: e.g., ‘Historians widely document that French colonial rule in Algeria involved torture, enforced disappearances… although the nature and intensity of these practices varied over time and remain the subject of ongoing historical research and debate.’

For Western Sahara, mention the UN’s role and the diversity of international positions: e.g., ‘Western Sahara is considered a non-self-governing territory by the UN, with Morocco controlling most of the area and proposing autonomy, while the Polisario Front seeks a referendum on independence.’

Where space is limited, signal that the summary is partial: e.g., ‘In broad terms…’, ‘Among the abuses documented by historians and rights groups are…’

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged descriptions or imagery to elicit sympathy or outrage rather than focusing solely on verifiable facts.

The article includes emotionally resonant descriptions such as ‘breaking the will of the Algerian people, erasing their identity, and severing their ties to their … roots’ and references to ‘millions displaced’ and ‘thousands of villages’ destroyed. These are presented largely through quotes from Algerian officials, which is appropriate, but the article does not consistently balance them with neutral explanatory context or independent corroboration in the same passages. While the underlying events are serious and well-documented, the way they are presented—especially in long, unchallenged political quotes—can function as an appeal to emotion that reinforces the Algerian government’s current political agenda around the bill.

3 suggestions

Clearly frame such passages as political rhetoric: e.g., ‘Boughali used strongly emotive language, saying that…’ to signal to readers that these are advocacy statements, not neutral descriptions.

Where possible, pair emotive claims with independent data or references: e.g., ‘Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million people were killed, though figures vary and remain contested among scholars.’

Include at least one neutral, analytical voice (e.g., a historian or political scientist) commenting on how historical memory is being used in current politics, to help readers separate emotional rhetoric from empirical claims.