Macron v. Owens
Launching a defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens reveals how utterly out of touch the Macrons are with reality. This doomed legal battle will end in defeat and embarrassment.
“We shall become a fable and a laughingstock to all, and this is what you have brought upon us with your absurd extravagances” - Molière, Les précieuses ridicules.
Let’s cut to the chase: at L’Éclaireur, like most our fellow French citizens, we don’t give a damn about Brigitte Macron’s gender. But it’s downright hilarious to watch the Élysée’s occupant and his wife douse a fire they started themselves with buckets of gasoline. This self-inflicted shit storm erupted because they’ve been chasing down critics like it’s a royal offense. Call it schadenfreude, but after eight years of their blatant disdain for the French and Emmanuel Macron’s mismanagement of the nation, it’s hard not to savor their predicaments.
What’s far less funny is the thought of French taxpayers bankrolling the Macrons’ legal crusade across the Atlantic, where lawyer fees could spiral into the hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of dollars.
Polls reveal a stark truth: nearly 80% of the French are fed up with Emmanuel Macron. Barely into his first term, he turned himself into a global punchline, notorious for hurling insults at his own people from foreign soil and delivering sanctimonious lectures that grated on everyone. His smugness and arrogance—let’s not linger there—only cement an unflattering stereotype of the French that hits the mark far too often. As for Brigitte Macron, she holds no official position. The “First Lady” title, mindlessly borrowed from the U.S. by French media, carries no legal weight whatsoever.
In France, claiming that Brigitte Macron is a biological man is not defamatory. Gender transition is legal. Therefore claiming falsely, even with malice, that someone has done something legal does not cause any reputational harm. That’s the reason why Brigitte Macron is pressing criminal charges for harassment on several individuals, currently prosecuted by the National Prosecutor for Combating Online Hate which Macron created - a circuitous tactic to say the least.
The defamation lawsuit filed in Delaware—a civil case, not a criminal one—is so frivolous it’s practically the script of a Seinfeld episode, though we harbor doubt that the twisted mind of Larry David can ever produce such a heap of nonsense.
For starters, Brigitte and Emmanuel Macron are public figures. Under US law, pursuant the Supreme Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, they’re stuck with the daunting task of proving that political commentator Candace Owens acted with deliberate malice—a nearly impossible feat. Claiming she’s chasing ratings and cash won’t hold water; after all, building an audience to generate revenues and profits is the lifeblood of every media operation.
The real kicker? The lawsuit hinges on the allegation that Brigitte Macron is biologically a male, so the Macrons must prove she was born female. Unlike in France, where defamation cases burden the accused, U.S. law puts the onus of proof on the plaintiffs. A few family snapshots and society-page clippings tossed into the lawsuit won’t cut it as evidence.
Get ready for a spectacle when Candace Owens’ legal team moves for a DNA test during pretrial discovery. If Brigitte Macron is indeed a woman, producing this airtight evidence should be a breeze, shouldn’t it? A refusal, of course, will smell bad faith, and you can bet that the jury will raise an eyebrow.
Americans have no patience for foreigners waltzing into their courts to lecture them — a nation where free speech is a hallowed, ironclad right etched into their Constitution. The Macrons’ lawsuit is dead on arrival, a clumsy PR operation that’ll collapse into a soggy, embarrassing flop.
The saddest part? This whole foretold fiasco lays bare the hollowness of the presidential couple. They’re as shallow as a Paris Match cover, all polished image with no depth, clutching desperately to a facade that’s crumbling.
It’s downright audacious to assert that Emmanuel Macron swept into power on the strength of some bold, modern leadership that captivated the French. The truth? He won in 2017 because the mainstream media and justice system kneecapped right-wing front-runner François Fillon four months before the election, clearing Macron’s path. Without that, he wouldn’t have even sniffed the second round.
The lawsuit veers into outright falsehood by claiming Emmanuel Macron created an official role for his wife after his election. In truth, he issued a flimsy charter with zero legal standing. Brigitte Macron holds no official position—neither the Constitution of French Republic nor any law bestows one upon her. She doesn’t represent France; she’s simply her husband’s sidekick. There goes the Macrons’ claim of reputational harm down the drain.
The lawsuit reads like a clumsy remake of Molière’s Les Précieuses Ridicules1, asserting that Brigitte Macron is the victim of sinister conspiracy theories spun by those intimidated by her supposed influence. No, really—it’s spelled out word for word, and it’s hard not to chuckle.
Brigitte Macron is nobody but her husband’s spouse. It’s her delusional belief that she’s a figure of significance that has grated on the nerves of the French for eight long years.
Les Précieuses ridicules is a one-act satirical comedy by the French playwright Molière, first performed in 1659. The play mocks the pretentiousness and affected manners of a certain social class in 17th-century France, particularly the "précieuses," women who adopted an exaggerated, refined style of speech and behavior inspired by the literary and social salons of the time.