« I couldn't care less » : Lisnard wants the Élysée, but the Algerian dead don't deserve his respect

N. Rochat — Genève, Suisse — 2026-10-20

The argument that collapses into a single question

« I wasn't born. »

So that is David Lisnard's argument for sweeping aside the massacre of 17 October 1961. As if a man's date of birth were a licence for indifference. As if the crimes of the past lost their importance the moment they predate the birth of those who claim to govern the present.

So let us ask a simple, direct question, impossible to dodge:

Mr Lisnard, the Shoah too — do you not care about it because you weren't born?

You were born in 1969. The Shoah had been over for nearly a quarter of a century. You were not born then either. Yet no serious person would argue that this not-being-born relieves a political leader of the duty to respect the memory of the victims, to know the facts, or to acknowledge the historical responsibility of the French state in the deportation of the Jews under the Occupation.

And fortunately so.

So why should the reasoning be any different when it comes to the Algerians massacred in Paris on 17 October 1961?

To be clear: this is not about claiming that the Shoah and the massacre of 17 October 1961 are identical events. They have distinct contexts, scales and histories. It is about stating an elementary principle: one does not choose which victims are granted the right to remembrance by invoking one's own date of birth.

If « I wasn't born » is not enough to dismiss the memory of the Shoah, that argument is no more enough to sweep aside the memory of the Algerians killed during the repression of 17 October 1961.

So the question is not whether David Lisnard was responsible for the events of 1961. He was not. The question is why, in 2026, a candidate for the presidency of the Republic chooses to answer a question about this tragedy with contempt.

What he sweeps aside with an « I don't care »

On 17 October 1961, Algerians demonstrated peacefully in Paris against a discriminatory curfew imposed on them. The police repression was bloody. Demonstrators were killed, others wounded, and bodies were found in the Seine. The exact toll is still debated by historians, but the violence of the repression is established.

This repression took place under the authority of the police prefect Maurice Papon, convicted in 1998 for complicity in crimes against humanity in another case — the deportation of Jews during the Occupation.

On 16 October 2021, Emmanuel Macron acknowledged that « the crimes committed that night under the authority of Maurice Papon are inexcusable for the Republic ».

This is therefore neither an invention nor some activist's fancy that could be dismissed with a contemptuous phrase. It is a tragedy inscribed in the history of France and acknowledged at the highest level of the state.

Yet, faced with a student who questions him about this event, Lisnard answers that he does not care and that it is not his problem today.

There lies the real political problem.

A public official may debate historical interpretations. He may dispute the figures, challenge an analysis or denounce the political instrumentalisation of memory. But he must be able to do so without turning the suffering of the victims into a subject unworthy of his attention.

« I've got Algerian mates » : that is not an answer

The argument consisting in invoking Algerian friends, present in the reported exchange, settles nothing.

Having friends of a given origin confers no universal certificate of historical understanding. Nor does it allow one to decide, in the place of the victims' descendants, that their memory now belongs to the past and that they should move on.

The Algerians of France do not all think alike. Some wish to turn the page, others demand fuller recognition, and still others favour dialogue and historical work. Their diversity must be respected.

But no political leader can use the supposed opinions of a few friends as a definitive argument to close the debate.

Memory is not a favour granted by an elected official. And respect for the dead does not depend on a candidate's personal approval.

He wants to preside over France: let him also own its history

David Lisnard is not responsible for what happened in 1961. He is responsible for his words in 2026.

That is precisely the distinction his argument seems to evade: no one is asking him to bear personal guilt for facts that predate his birth. He is being asked to understand that a presidential candidate must be able to confront the dark pages of national history without treating them flippantly.

The France he aspires to lead is also the France that experienced the Shoah, the deportation, colonisation and the repression of 17 October 1961. Acknowledging these facts does not erase the other sufferings of history. It does not diminish any victim. It simply obliges the Republic to look at its past seriously.

Mr Lisnard, you were not born in 1961. You were not born during the Shoah. But you are a candidate in 2026.

Your date of birth condemns you to no guilt. Nor does it exempt you from answering for your words.

The question remains: if you consider that a historical event does not concern you because you were not born, what place do you grant to memory in the Republic you claim to lead?

The dead of 17 October 1961 do not need your approval to belong to the history of France. And their memory will not disappear because you decide it does not deserve your attention.

A president is not asked to have lived through every tragedy of his country. He is asked to be able to look them in the face.

📚 COMPLETE BIBLIOGRAPHY (rule no. 19)

1. BFMTV, « I couldn't care less, I wasn't born: David Lisnard's annoyance after being questioned by a student about the massacre of 17 October 1961 », 20 October 2026 — https://www.bfmtv.com/politique/elections/presidentielle/j-en-ai-rien-a-cirer-j-etais-pas-ne-l-agacement-de-david-lisnard-apres-avoir-ete-interroge-par-une-etudiante-sur-le-massacre-du-17-octobre-1961_AD-202610200128.html

2. Franceinfo, « I don't care: candidate David Lisnard gets annoyed after being questioned about 17 October 1961 » — https://www.franceinfo.fr/elections/presidentielle/je-m-en-fous-le-candidat-a-la-presidentielle-david-lisnard-s-agace-apres-avoir-ete-interroge-sur-le-17-octobre-1961_8245099.html

3. France 3, « David Lisnard gets annoyed after being questioned about 17 October 1961 » — https://france3-regions.franceinfo.fr/provence-alpes-cote-d-azur/alpes-maritimes/cannes/

4. Le Figaro, « I don't care: David Lisnard gets annoyed after being questioned about 17 October 1961 », 20 October 2026 — https://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presidentielles/

5. IdRef / Wikipedia, « David Lisnard, born on 2 February 1969 in Limoges » — https://www.idref.fr/230877672

⚠️ Published reservations. (1) The remarks are reported by several media outlets; the full video is authoritative. (2) The death toll of 17 October 1961 is estimated at between 100 and 300 according to historians, the official figure having long been minimised. (3) The article attacks the remarks and their political author, not a people.