Brigitte Macron Defamation Trial: A Deep Dive
Two women faced the Paris Criminal Court on Wednesday for spreading a false rumor that Brigitte Macron, the First Lady of France, is a transgender woman. The rumor, which has been circulating since the election of Emmanuel Macron in 2017, alleges that Brigitte Macron, née Trogneux, never existed and that her brother, Jean-Michel, assumed her identity after undergoing a sex change.
The Origin and Spread of the Rumor
The rumor gained significant traction in 2021 when the two defendants, a self-proclaimed 'medium' and an 'independent journalist,' aired a four-hour interview on YouTube. In this video, they discussed various aspects of Brigitte Macron's life, including surgical procedures and personal details about her family. The video also made the far-fetched claim that Brigitte Macron is not the mother of her three children. The false information went viral, particularly in the United States, where it was picked up by far-right groups during the presidential campaign.
Legal Proceedings and Wider Implications
Brigitte Macron filed a complaint for public defamation, leading to the trial. Although she was not present at the hearing, her lawyer represented her. The court also reviewed another civil action for invasion of privacy and violation of image rights, but this was dismissed in 2023. The case has broader implications, as it highlights a disturbing trend of transphobic misinformation targeting female politicians globally, including Michelle Obama, Kamala Harris, and Jacinda Ardern.
- Brigitte Macron was represented by her lawyer, Jean Ennochi, at the trial. The two defendants, one of whom was absent due to illness, had previously spread the rumor through a four-hour YouTube interview. The video included photos of Brigitte Macron and her family, discussions about surgical procedures, and claims that she is not the mother of her three children.
- The rumor not only defamed Brigitte Macron but also included serious accusations of child abuse. The false information had a significant impact, especially in the United States, where it went viral among far-right groups during the presidential campaign. The court reviewed a civil action for invasion of privacy and violation of image rights but dismissed it in 2023, stating that the facts amounted to defamation.
