Skip to main content

PeakMetrics / Fact Checks

Politics & government fact checks

Explore claims publishers have checked about politics & government. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.

12,754 published reviews in this topic

Pagella PoliticaPolitics & government

«[Contro l’omofobia] Nell’Unione europea tutti i grandi Paesi si sono adeguati: Spagna, Francia, Germania»

Publisher’s rating: C'eri quasi

Pagella Politica examined Laura Boldrini’s claim in an interview with Fanpage that Germany, France and Spain had adapted their laws against homophobia, while Italy had not. The review set that comparison in the context of the Zan bill: approved by the Chamber of Deputies in November 2020, it was stalled in the Senate when the review was written. The proposed bill would add discrimination based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to existing criminal provisions. The review’s central question was whether all the named large EU countries had rules specifically addressing these forms of discrimination. [S1: “Secondo Boldrini, Germania, Francia e Spagna «si sono adeguati» per colmare il vuoto legislativo e approvare norme contro l’omofobia, mentre il nostro Paese no.”; “Il disegno di legge Zan contro l’omotransfobia, approvato a novembre 2020 dalla Camera ma oggi bloccato al Senato dalla Lega.”; “Al di là delle posizioni in campo, è vero che «tutti i grandi Paesi» dell’Unione europea, eccetto l’Italia, hanno norme specifiche per contrastare l’omotransfobia?”] The review compared the countries’ criminal-law provisions, including provisions on discrimination, incitement and aggravating circumstances. It found that France and Spain had explicit protections: French law referred to sexual orientation and gender identity, while Spanish criminal law covered various offences involving sexual orientation or gender and treated such a motive as an aggravating circumstance. Germany was less clear-cut. Its criminal code did not explicitly name sexual orientation or gender identity in the relevant provisions, but the review reported that discrimination against people on those grounds could fall within the broader category of a “determined group.” [S1: “Negli ultimi vent’anni la Francia ha invece introdotto norme specifiche per contrastare l’omotransfobia, con riferimenti espliciti nel codice penale non solo all’orientamento sessuale ma anche all’identità di genere.”; “Il codice penale spagnolo punisce, con provvedimenti più o meno severi, alcuni reati se commessi con discriminazioni basate sull’«orientamento sessuale» o sul «genere» della vittima.”; “Il reato di discriminazione per l’orientamento sessuale o per l’identità di genere non è infatti previsto in maniera esplicita, anche se, a differenza delle norme del nostro Paese, rientra comunque nelle discriminazioni verso un «determinato gruppo». ”] The comparison therefore supports the claim for France and Spain more directly than for Germany: German law offered a broader, less explicit route rather than the specific protections found in the other two countries. The review describes the overall picture as varied, not uniform, and says Germany’s provisions were fairly similar to Italy’s. That qualification matters: the claim’s broad wording suggests all three countries had adapted in the same clear way, but the review’s account distinguishes Germany’s general approach from France’s and Spain’s explicit rules. [S1: “Abbiamo verificato e la situazione in Germania, Francia e Spagna è abbastanza variegata.”; “Dovendo fare un confronto, il codice penale tedesco contiene disposizioni abbastanza simili a quelle italiane.”; “La Germania non punisce esplicitamente l’omofobia”]

dpaPolitics & government

Protestactie in Boekarest vanavond (6 april 2021). Roemeense volk eist ontslag van de regering.

Publisher’s rating: De foto dateert uit 2017. Toen kwamen Roemenen massaal bijeen op straat in de hoofdstad Boekarest tijdens anti-overheidmanifestaties rond het Victoriapaleis, een regeringsgebouw.

The claim attached a photo of a large crowd and Romanian flags to a Facebook post on 6 April 2021, describing it as a protest in Bucharest “tonight” and saying people were demanding the government’s resignation. The review identifies the image—not whether a protest occurred in Bucharest that evening—as the key fact to check. It dates the photograph to 5 February 2017, not April 2021. To establish the image’s setting, the review describes visible landmarks: the garden in front of the Victoria Palace appears on the right, and the Grigore Antipa Natural History Museum is visible at upper left. It also compares the photograph’s viewpoint with a video of a demonstration from the same evening, filmed from the same perspective. The review notes matching details in both: a smaller white van with a roof antenna near the middle of the video corresponds to a vehicle in the photo, while a larger similar van appears on the left in both. The date matters because the photo belongs to a different protest episode. The review says hundreds of thousands of Romanians took to the streets nationwide in early February 2017 in opposition to a proposed easing of anti-corruption laws, and that protesters demanded the government’s resignation. It reports that the government reversed its decision after the mass demonstrations, which continued for days after the decree was withdrawn. Thus, the image does show a Bucharest anti-government protest with the stated demand, but it does not document the claimed event on 6 April 2021.

Factcrescnedo Sri LankaPolitics & government

භාග්‍යා, ජාතික ජන බලවේගයේ සමාජිකත්වය ලබා ගත්තා ද ?

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The claim concerned Bhagya Abeyratne, who had attracted attention for environmental activism, and posts asserting that she had joined the National People’s Power (NPP). The review traced one such post to a news item titled “Bhagya joins the compass,” which used an image of Abeyratne and was shared with NPP branding. The fact-check says its investigation found that she had not obtained party membership. The review examined the event that helped prompt the claim: a tree-planting programme held on April 4 under the theme “Let’s protect Sinharaja with the environment.” It says the event was organized by the Ekamuthu Vee Foundation’s Kukul Korale branch, with participation and support from environmental organizations, the Forest Department, villagers, and the National Intellectual Organization. Abeyratne was invited to speak; the review identifies the organization’s banner at the event as the basis for interpreting her presence as party membership. To check whether membership had been granted or taken, the publisher says it asked the National Intellectual Organization’s chair, the NPP, and Abeyratne. The chair said the organization had participated in the planting project but had neither given her party membership nor asked her to take it. The NPP said she had not joined, and Abeyratne said she had joined no party and attended at the request of a monk. The review therefore concludes that her participation and the banner did not establish that she had become an NPP member.

dpaPolitics & government

Deze begroeting op de foto tussen Mark Rutte, Hugo De Jonge en Martin Van Rijn vond plaats op 25 februari.

Publisher’s rating: De tijdsaanduiding in het bericht klopt niet. Het moment vond niet 'gisteren' plaats, maar op 4 juni 2020. De man die het bericht op Facebook plaatste, deed dat op 26 februari 2021. Dat is ruim 8 maanden later. Bovendien waren demissionair premier Rutte en minister Van Rijn niet aanwezig tijdens de plenaire vergadering op 25 februari. Het originele bericht werd mogelijk wél op de juiste dag gepubliceert, aangezien de afbeelding al sinds juni circuleert. Daarom mist het bericht context.

Fact Crescendo Sri LankaPolitics & government

Fact Check: උවිඳු විජේවීර සම්බන්ධයෙන් ජවිපෙ නායකයින් පැවසු බවට හුවමාරු වූ ව්‍යාජ සටහන් පෙළක්!

Publisher’s rating: False

The review concerns social-media posts attributing insulting remarks about Uvindu Wijeweera to JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake and former JVP parliamentarian Nihal Galappaththi. It describes the posts as circulating amid discussion of Wijeweera, son of JVP founder Rohana Wijeweera, and his reported preparations to form a new political group. Among the alleged remarks were claims that Wijeweera was a political pawn and that dressing like his father would not make him the same kind of person. The review says it found no source for these attributions. To check whether the men had made the quoted comments, the publisher says it looked for coverage in mainstream media and reviewed videos of their statements from the preceding week. It reports finding neither relevant media coverage nor the alleged remarks in those videos. The article also says the JVP media division told the fact-checkers that neither man had made such statements. These are the checks the review reports; the supplied excerpt does not identify the videos or provide links to them. The review adds that Galappaththi himself denied making the quoted remark about Wijeweera’s clothing and said he would take legal action against the posts. It distinguishes those fabricated attributions from genuine discussion of Wijeweera: the article notes that he had recently spoken to the Divaina newspaper about his political views and his relationship with the JVP. Its conclusion is that the posts attributing the insulting statements to the two JVP figures were unsupported and false.