Politics & government fact checks

Een Nederlandse man waarschuwt in een video voor een eventuele noodtoestand in Nederland. Die zou afgeroepen worden naar aanleiding van de rellen over de coronamaatregelen. Als die noodtoestand er komt, is er maar één man die alle beslissingen mag nemen in het land: minister van Volkgsgezondheid Hugo de Jonge. Het filmpje werd al duidzenden keren bekeken en gedeeld op Facebook

Publisher’s rating: De beweringen in de video zijn bijna volledig fout. Hoewel een noodtoestand juridisch mogelijk is in Nederland, kan die niet zomaar worden afgeroepen. Er is nooit slechts één minister bevoegd om alle beslissingen te nemen, en wat ze kunnen beslissen is ook beperkt.

The review examined a video circulating on Facebook in which a Dutch man warned that a state of emergency might be declared in response to riots over coronavirus measures. He claimed that, if this happened, Health Minister Hugo de Jonge would be the only person allowed to make decisions for the country. The review’s central finding is that emergency powers would not make de Jonge the sole decision-maker or give him unlimited authority. The review explains that Article 103 of the Dutch Constitution permits a state of emergency, while the Coordination Act on Exceptional Situations sets out the applicable rules. The government can declare or end a state of emergency by royal decree, but the States General, meeting in joint session, decide whether it continues and for how long. The review also says that an emergency requires “extraordinary circumstances” in which ordinary legal powers are insufficient; it is therefore not something the government can simply declare without conditions. Nor would emergency powers let one minister decide everything. The review says the relevant powers are listed in separate laws, and the responsible minister depends on the subject. It gives examples: the food-supply emergency law refers chiefly to the agriculture minister, while the medical-professionals emergency law refers to the health minister. It adds that, in theory, the justice minister could order internment under specified conditions during a general emergency—not the health minister. The review also notes that pandemic restrictions were being imposed through ordinary legislation, including the Public Health Act and the temporary coronavirus law, rather than by declaring a state of emergency.

ఢిల్లీలో విధ్వంసం సృష్టించిన ఫేక్ రైతుల ట్రాక్టర్లను తరుముతున్న పంజాబ్ సరిహద్దు గ్రామ ప్రజలు

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

Pria berwajah Asia dalam sebuah foto yang diklaim sebagai pengawal Joe Biden dari pasukan militer Cina

Publisher’s rating: Keliru

Claim: A fake news card being shared as TN minister Jayakumar condems admk cadres

Publisher’s rating: False

The review investigated a news card circulating after the opening of former chief minister Jayalalithaa’s memorial. The card, attributed to minister Jayakumar and presented with Puthiya Thalaimurai’s name, claimed that people who went to Karunanidhi’s memorial were not ADMK supporters and that genuine supporters had gone home after the event. The review says the card spread on social media on January 27, 2021, the day the memorial opening took place.

Claim: This man not participated in delhi farmer tractor rally

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerns a photograph circulated as showing a farmer who was beaten by police after taking part in the Delhi farmers’ tractor rally and the Red Fort flag incident. The review says the image was being shared with captions alleging that police had beaten the man for raising a flag at the Red Fort, or for participating in the rally. It dates the rally and violence in Delhi to January 26, 2021, when farmers drove tractors toward the Red Fort.

Claim: Fake news being circulated about TN minister dindigul srinivasan

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerned a social-media news card attributed to News7 Tamil. It said Dindigul Srinivasan had praised the memorial to Amma, saying it was so impressive that even if she had been alive it could not have been built so well, and that Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami would receive Amma’s grace. The review says it investigated whether Srinivasan had made those remarks and whether News7 Tamil had reported them.

ఢిల్లీ లో నిర్వహించిన ట్రాక్టర్ ర్యాలిలో రైతులు జాతీయ జెండాను కాళ్ళతో తొక్కి పెట్రోల్ పోసి కాల్చుతున్న దృశ్యాలు

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

జాతీయ జెండాని తీసేసి బీజేపీ జెండాని బీజేపీ వారు పెడుతున్న ఫోటో

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

Claim: Misleading shared as H Raja condemned Jayalalithaa memorial

Publisher’s rating: False

The viral card attributed to H. Raja asked, in effect, whether public money should fund a memorial for a “corrupt queen” and whether the Prime Minister should inaugurate it. The review says the post was shared by Ashok Paranjothi on January 20, 2021, and that it circulated widely. Its investigation concerns whether Raja actually made the statement represented in that card—not whether a memorial existed or what its merits were. [S1: “இந்த பதிவை அசோக் பரஞ்ஜோதி என்பவர் 2021 ஜனவரி 20 அன்று பகிர்ந்துள்ளார். பலரும் இதை ஷேர் செய்து வருகின்றனர்.”; “அதில், ‘ஊழல் ராணிக்கு மக்கள் பணத்தில் மணி மண்டபமா? அதனை எங்கள் பாரத பிரதமர் திறந்து வைக்க வேண்டுமா?’ என்று இருந்தது.”] The fact-check reports checking Raja’s Facebook and Twitter pages and finding no such card there. It also says the graphic did not resemble the cards normally posted on his social-media pages. The investigators then searched Google for statements by Raja about inaugurating the memorial, but report finding no news coverage of any such comment. Those checks are evidence against the attribution as presented in the circulating image; the excerpt does not identify an original post by Raja or provide a link to one. [S1: “எச்.ராஜாவின் ஃபேஸ்புக், ட்விட்டர் உள்ளிட்ட சமூக ஊடக பக்கங்களை ஆய்வு செய்தோம். அதில், நாம் ஆய்வுக்கு எடுத்துக்கொண்டது போல எந்த ஒரு நியூஸ் கார்டும் வெளியாகவில்லை.”; “கூகுளில் மணி மண்டபம் திறப்பது தொடர்பாக எச்.ராஜா கருத்து ஏதும் தெரிவித்தாரா என்று தேடினோம். ஆனால், எப்படி ஒரு துண்டு செய்தி கூட நமக்குக் கிடைக்கவில்லை.”] The review also reports that Tamil Nadu BJP media-cell official S. M. Balaji called the card fake and said Raja had not made the statement. Raja’s nephew Surya Ramadoss and Tamil Nadu BJP IT-wing head C. T. R. Nirmal Kumar likewise confirmed to the reviewers that it was a fake card. Taken together, the reported absence of the card from Raja’s pages and of news reports about the alleged remark, alongside those denials, supports the review’s conclusion that the attribution was fabricated. [S1: “அதற்கு அவர், ‘இது போலியாது. எச்.ராஜா பெயரில் யாரோ போலியாக இதை உருவாக்கி பரப்பி வருகின்றனர். எச்.ராஜா இது போல எந்த ஒரு கருத்தையும் வெளியிடவில்லை’ என்றார்.”; “எச்.ராஜாவின் மருமகன் சூர்யா ராமதாஸ் மற்றும் தமிழக பா.ஜ.க தகவல் தொழில்நுட்பப் பிரிவு தலைவர் சி.டிஆர்.நிர்மல் குமார் ஆகியோரும் இது போலியான நியூஸ் கார்டு என்று உறுதி செய்தனர்.”]

Claim: Rahul Gandhi not did photoshoot like eating

Publisher’s rating: False

The claim concerned a social-media post that presented Rahul Gandhi, seated at a meal with a mask on, as posing to look as if he were eating. The review says the post combined a photograph of Gandhi with a Tamil film scene and carried a mocking caption. It identifies the post as one shared by Salai Ganesh Kumar on Facebook on January 24, 2020. The review’s conclusion addresses that specific portrayal: it says Gandhi was not pretending to eat while wearing a mask. To check what happened, the review says it examined photographs and video. It describes images showing Gandhi remove his mask to eat, then put it back on to speak. It also reports that a video posted by the All India Congress Committee showed him talking with people nearby and then covering his leaf, but did not show him eating. The reviewers therefore looked for other footage and say they found a Vasanth TV YouTube video, identified as having been filmed during Gandhi’s tour of Erode district, that clearly showed him eating. That distinction matters: the absence of eating in the first video did not establish that the eating was staged. The review relied on the separate footage it says showed Gandhi eating to reject the viral portrayal as false. Its conclusion is limited to the claim that he acted as if eating while wearing a mask; it does not say that the combined post’s photograph and film scene depicted one continuous event.

Video of Rahul Gandhi showing his back when journalists asked to show the backside view of the book held by him

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The video does show Rahul Gandhi turning around while holding up a booklet, but the review says the clip’s audio and framing misrepresent why he did so. The incident occurred during his press briefing at the AICC headquarters on 19 January 2021, where he released a booklet called “Kheti Ka Khoon” about the new farm laws. The review identifies the circulating video as an edited excerpt of that briefing, not a response to journalists asking for the book’s backside view. In the fuller footage, Gandhi turns around while presenting the booklet and says, in Hindi, that his side is showing it openly, unlike how BJP leaders would have shown their book. The review says this remark’s audio was edited into the circulated clip and shared with a false narrative. Thus, the turn is visible, but the claim gives it a different prompt and meaning from the one described in the original recording. The review describes checking the press-conference footage against the circulating video. It points to the Indian National Congress’s official YouTube livestream, locating the booklet-release visuals at 2:07 and the turn and accompanying remarks from 2:24. It also says the same visuals with the original audio appeared in a video posted by the Indian Youth Congress. Together, those comparisons support the review’s conclusion that the clip was edited and misrepresented.

gastos do Bolsonaro com cartão corporativo. 2 milhões em chiclete 15 milhões em Leite condensado

Publisher’s rating: Falso

Broadcaster Anthony Taberna called Vice President Leni Robredo "boba" or a stupid woman

Publisher’s rating: False

Video of Indian farmers standing on the Indian flag and damaging it.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a video presented as showing Indian farmers standing on and damaging India’s national flag. FACTLY’s investigation concluded that the video instead showed a protest in Sacramento, California, and that the people shown were not farmers in India. The review says the flag was damaged in protest against India over the 1984 Sikh Genocide; the claim misrepresented both the setting and the reason for the act. [S1]

ಪಂಜಾಬ್‌ನ ಹೋರಾಟನಿರತ ರೈತರು ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ಹೆದ್ದಾರಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಂದಿ ಸೈನ್‌ಬೋರ್ಡ್‌ಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಸಿ ಬಳಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

EX-MULHER DE BOLSONARO É EXPULSA DO PSL

Publisher’s rating: Falso

కాంగ్రెస్ నాయకుడు రాహుల్ గాంధీ మాస్క్ ధరించి భోజనం చేస్తున్న ఫోటో

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

Lord Macaulay’s 1835 British Parliamentary address glorifying India and advocating a plan to conquer India.

Publisher’s rating: FALSE

The claim concerns a purported British Parliamentary speech dated 2 February 1835 in which Thomas Macaulay allegedly praised India and urged breaking its cultural and spiritual heritage to help conquer the country. FACTLY says that the document associated with that date is Macaulay’s “Minute on Education,” not a speech to Parliament. The review reports that the Minute supports Western education and does not praise India’s ancient education system as the viral claim suggests. The review describes two checks on whether the alleged parliamentary address occurred: it searched Hansard, the archive of British parliamentary records, using multiple keywords, and found no record of the purported speech. It also consulted the 2 February 1835 Minute, which the review says was shared by Columbia University. According to the review, the Minute’s argument for Western education—including its comparison of European and Indian and Arabian literature—does not match the viral depiction of Macaulay praising India’s traditional learning. FACTLY also notes that a book records Macaulay’s remarks on India in Parliament in 1833 and says those comments appear to contradict the words attributed to him in the circulating post. Its conclusion is specific to the alleged address on 2 February 1835: the review says Macaulay did not deliver that speech in Parliament.

Claim: Gotabaya Rajapaksa statement was misunderstood

Publisher’s rating: Misleading

The claim concerned a video of former Sri Lankan president Gotabaya Rajapaksa discussing the defeat of LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. Posts attributed to him a longer account: that India’s Congress government helped end the war and that he discussed this with Indian MPs Kanimozhi and Thol. Thirumavalavan, who accepted gifts. The review says an Indian parliamentary delegation visited Sri Lanka after the civil war ended in 2009 and included those MPs, but that the viral claim added remarks not present in the video. [S1] To check the attribution, Fact Crescendo’s Sri Lankan team obtained the full video of the speech and contacted the media division of the Sri Lankan President’s Secretariat. According to the review, the video contains Rajapaksa saying he had “finished” Prabhakaran after dragging him “like a dog”; it does not contain the claims about Congress assistance, the two MPs, or gifts. The Secretariat’s media division confirmed that he made the remark about Prabhakaran, but said he did not mention the MPs or Indian government assistance. [S1] The distinction is important: the review does not say the quoted remark about Prabhakaran was fabricated. It reports that the video contained that remark, while the additional statements circulating with it were not spoken in the footage. On that basis, the review concludes that the viral account was incomplete and misleading. [S1]

Image showing a large number of farmers who have entered Delhi to participate in the protest on 26 January 2021

Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING

The claim concerned a social-media image said to show a large gathering of farmers who had entered Delhi for the proposed 26 January 2021 tractor rally opposing the new farm laws. The review distinguishes the broader event from the image: it says farmers were indeed heading to Delhi, but concludes that the particular image was old and unrelated to their protest. The fact that farmers were travelling to Delhi does not establish that this photograph showed them. To investigate the image’s provenance, the review reports conducting reverse-image searches. Those searches found social-media posts sharing the same image in 2017, including a version digitally altered by placing a man’s image over the picture, as well as a 2017 YouTube video with similar visuals. The review says these matches establish that the image predates the 2021 rally and is not related to it. The review does not identify where the image was taken or explain the original gathering’s context: it says it could find no credible information about either. Its conclusion is therefore specific: the image was misleadingly presented as showing farmers who had reached Delhi for the rally, while the photograph’s precise location and circumstances remain unestablished in the supplied article.