Will Macron Use Science to Prove Brigitte's Gender in US Court?

The ongoing legal battle between French President Emmanuel Macron and right-wing influencer Candace Owens centres around claims questioning the gender of Brigitte Macron, leading to a defamation suit in the US. The Macrons plan to provide photographic and scientific evidence to substantiate that Brigitte is indeed a woman, following Owens' allegations that she was born male. This case underscores the complexities of defamation laws, particularly when public figures are involved.

Last updated: 27 October 2023 (BST)

Key Takeaways

• Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron are suing Candace Owens for defamation over claims about Brigitte's gender.
• The Macrons will present photographic and scientific evidence in court.
• Owens has filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming it should not be heard in Delaware.
• The Macrons previously won a defamation case in France, but it was overturned on appeal.
• In US defamation cases, public figures must prove "actual malice" on the part of the defendant.

The Background of the Case

The controversy surrounding Brigitte Macron's gender began in fringe online communities and gained traction through a 2021 YouTube video by Amandine Roy and Natacha Rey. As these claims made their way into mainstream discourse, they were amplified by social media influencers like Candace Owens. The accusations have been a source of distress for the Macrons, prompting them to take legal action.

Initial Legal Actions in France

In 2024, the Macrons successfully sued Roy and Rey for defamation in a French court. This victory, however, was short-lived as the ruling was overturned on appeal in 2025, based on freedom of expression considerations rather than the truth of the allegations. The Macrons are currently appealing this decision.

The Current Lawsuit Against Candace Owens

In July 2023, the Macrons filed a lawsuit against Owens in a Delaware court, stating that she "disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favour of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers." The lawsuit seeks to hold Owens accountable for her statements, which the Macrons argue are not only false but have also caused them significant emotional distress.

Legal Considerations in Defamation Cases

Defamation cases in the United States, particularly those involving public figures like the Macrons, require plaintiffs to demonstrate "actual malice." This means they must prove that the defendant knowingly spread false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This high standard is designed to protect free speech, making such cases particularly challenging.

Owens’ Legal Response

Owens' legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that it should not be adjudicated in Delaware. They assert that the lawsuit does not pertain to her businesses, which are registered in that state. Furthermore, they argue that defending the case in Delaware would impose significant financial and operational burdens on Owens.

The Emotional Toll on the Macrons

According to Tom Clare, the Macrons' lawyer, Brigitte has found the allegations "incredibly upsetting." He noted that this situation has not only affected her personally but has also placed additional stress on Emmanuel Macron as he balances his responsibilities as a president and a family man. Clare emphasised the emotional burden of publicly presenting evidence to counter false claims.

Evidence to Be Presented

The Macrons are preparing to present a variety of evidence in court, including expert testimony and photographic documentation, such as images of Brigitte during her pregnancies and while raising their children. Clare stated that while the exact nature of the scientific evidence would not be disclosed at this stage, it would serve to substantiate their case comprehensively.

Public Reaction and Implications

The public response to this case has been mixed, reflecting broader societal debates around gender identity, free speech, and defamation. The Macrons’ decision to pursue this legal action highlights their commitment to defending their family’s integrity against unfounded claims. Meanwhile, Owens' insistence on her right to free speech raises questions about the limits of expression, especially when it involves public figures.

Why This Case Matters

This case not only has personal implications for the Macrons but also touches on significant legal and societal issues. It brings to light the challenges public figures face in protecting their reputations while navigating the complexities of free speech. The outcome could set a precedent for future defamation cases involving public personalities and the standards of proof required.

What Happens Next?

The legal proceedings are expected to unfold over the coming months, as both sides prepare their arguments and evidence. The Macrons are resolute in their quest to clear Brigitte's name, while Owens continues to maintain her stance. The court's decision on the motion to dismiss will likely be a pivotal moment in this ongoing saga.

FAQs

What is the basis of the defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens?

The Macrons are suing Candace Owens for defamation, claiming she spread false information regarding Brigitte's gender, causing emotional distress and harm to their reputations.

What evidence will the Macrons present in court?

The Macrons plan to present photographic evidence, including images from Brigitte's pregnancies, along with expert scientific testimony to substantiate their claims.

What does "actual malice" mean in defamation cases?

"Actual malice" refers to the requirement that public figures must prove the defendant knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in defamation suits.

Why was the previous defamation ruling overturned in France?

The previous ruling in favour of the Macrons was overturned on appeal due to freedom of expression grounds, not on the veracity of the allegations made against Brigitte Macron.

What are the implications of this case for free speech?

This case raises important questions about the boundaries of free speech, particularly concerning statements made about public figures and the potential consequences of spreading false information.

As this high-profile case continues to develop, it remains a significant focal point in discussions about gender, defamation, and the responsibilities of public discourse. The implications could resonate far beyond the courtroom. #BrigitteMacron #Defamation #FreeSpeech