The Boualem Sansal Case: When France Criticizes Algeria but Forgets Its Own Laws – Outrage with Double Standards

In recent weeks, a controversy has erupted in the French media over the application of Article 87 bis of the Algerian Penal Code, which penalizes acts that threaten state security, territorial integrity, stability, and the normal functioning of institutions. Some French journalists and elites, particularly from the hard right or far-right, have characterized the strict enforcement of this article in the Boualem Sansal case as a "witch hunt" against freedom of expression in Algeria. However, this outrage seems to suffer from a glaring double standard.

Similar Provisions in French Law

What these critics deliberately omit is that the French Penal Code also includes similar, if not stricter, provisions to protect national security, territorial integrity, and the proper functioning of institutions. Articles 411-1 and subsequent sections of the French Penal Code impose severe penalties for actions that threaten the nation’s fundamental interests. For example, Article 412-1 penalizes acts endangering territorial integrity, while Article 421-1 imposes heavy sentences for offenses that can be classified as terrorist acts.

It is therefore legitimate to question why the enforcement of such provisions in Algeria is interpreted as repression of freedoms, while in France, these same laws are deemed necessary for defending the rule of law.

The Boualem Sansal Case: Biased Outrage

In the Algerian context, Boualem Sansal made controversial statements about sensitive issues related to territorial integrity, statements that would have provoked similar reactions in any country. Had Sansal made such remarks about Alsace or Corsica—suggesting, for example, that these regions should separate from France—he would most likely have faced prosecution under the same articles mentioned above.

It is worth noting that France has responded with great firmness to similar movements, whether it be Corsican nationalism or separatist claims in Alsace. French authorities have historically demonstrated zero tolerance for challenges to territorial unity. Why, then, this double standard toward Algeria?

Ideological Criticism Disguised

The French media’s criticism seems to go beyond the Sansal affair. It fits into a broader ideological stance aimed at discrediting Algerian institutions and undermining their legitimacy in the eyes of the international public. By presenting the strict enforcement of a national law as an attack on freedom of expression, these media outlets ignore that defending territorial integrity is a sovereign priority for any state, whether it’s France, Algeria, or another country.

This stance also reflects a more general tendency to suggest that countries in the Global South have no right to apply the same state protection standards as those practiced in Western democracies. This paternalistic, even neo-colonial, perspective reveals an inability to accept that nations like Algeria can defend their sovereignty with the same rigor as European powers.

Freedom of Expression or Political Instrumentalization?

The Boualem Sansal affair also raises broader questions about the boundary between freedom of expression and acts that harm the state’s fundamental interests. While criticism of institutions must be allowed in a democratic society, this does not mean that explicit or implicit calls to undermine territorial unity or institutional stability should be tolerated without consequences.

Conclusion

French media should look in their own backyard before criticizing the application of a law that mirrors, in every respect, provisions within their own legal system. The Boualem Sansal affair reveals less about an attack on freedom of expression and more about an attempt to discredit Algeria under the guise of universal principles. If France wishes to give lessons, it should start by asking how it would respond in a comparable situation. Criticism based on double standards only undermines the credibility of these arguments and reinforces the perception of a biased and ideological approach.

Belgacem Merbah