France's first lady Brigitte Macron steps up legal battle in gender rumours case
On Thursday, the Paris appeals court overturned earlier convictions against the two women for spreading false claims – that went viral online – that Brigitte Macron, 72, used to be a man.
Disinformation on Macron's gender has circulated on social media for years. Her 24-year age difference with President Emmanuel Macron has also attracted much comment.
Brigitte Macron filed a libel complaint against the two women after they posted a YouTube video in December 2021, alleging she had once been a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux – who is actually Brigitte Macron's brother.
In the video, defendant Amandine Roy, a self-proclaimed spiritual medium, interviewed Natacha Rey, a self-described independent journalist, for four hours on her YouTube channel.
Rey spoke about the "state lie" and "scam" she claimed to have uncovered that Jean-Michel Trogneux had changed gender to become Brigitte, and then married the future president.
The claim went viral, including among conspiracy theorists in the United States.
A lower court in September last year had ordered the two women to pay €8,000 euros in damages to Brigitte Macron, and €5,000 to her brother.
Brigitte Macron's lawyer Jean Ennochi told AFP Sunday that her brother, too, was taking his case against the dismissal of the charges to the highest appeals court, the Court de Cassation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
3 hours ago
- France 24
World's major courts take growing role in climate fight
Wednesday's highly anticipated advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice comes in the wake of landmark international decisions that experts say together have the potential to significantly shape climate action. - How has climate litigation evolved? - Andrew Raine, deputy director of the UN Environment Programme's law division, said frustration over the pace of climate action had spurred people, organisations and countries to turn to the courts. "When political systems fall short, the law is increasingly seen as a tool for driving ambition and enforcing commitments that have been made," he told AFP. These have been bolstered by increasingly precise and detailed climate science, including from the UN's IPCC climate expert panel. Almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed up to the end of 2024, in nearly 60 countries, according to the Grantham Research Institute, using data compiled by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. While not all have been successful -- and some have tried to slow climate progress -- there have been notable cases in recent years that have pushed states to do more. Urgenda, an environmental organisation in the Netherlands, notched a win at the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019, with justices ordering the government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by the end of the following year. And in 2021, the German Constitutional Court found that the government's failure to sufficiently cut planet-heating pollution placed an unacceptable burden on future generations. Raine said that litigation was increasingly crossing borders, with 24 cases brought before international or regional courts, tribunals or other bodies. "This marks a turning point and it reflects the transboundary and shared nature of the climate crisis," he said. - Why have recent cases been deemed historic? - Two in particular have been hailed as watershed moments that will help shape how courts, governments and businesses understand and act on their climate responsibilities. Last year, an advisory opinion by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea said carbon emissions can be considered a marine pollutant and that countries have a legal duty to take measures to reduce their effects on oceans. The tribunal made clear that the work of defining countries' obligations is not limited to the Paris climate agreement or the UN body that runs climate change negotiations. Major polluters have argued that the UN framework is sufficient and against courts taking climate decisions. Another major advisory opinion was issued this month, with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights reaffirming the right to a healthy climate system and acknowledging the rights of nature. But perhaps the court's most profound statement was to place protection against irreversible climate harms on the same level as international prohibitions on genocide and torture, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. The court said "massive and serious harm to the climate system through emissions, through deforestation and so on, is absolutely forbidden by international law," he said. In his view this made it the strongest statement yet by any international court on states' duty to avoid causing severe ecological destruction. All eyes are now on the ICJ. What could be the impact? Vanuatu, one of many low-lying islands threatened by sea level rise, has asked the ICJ to give its opinion on states' obligations to reduce emissions. But the potentially more controversial request is what -- if any -- legal consequences there might be for major polluters who cause severe climate damages. "These are questions of global justice," said Rodriguez-Garavito, potentially touching on contentious issues of "reparations for climate harms" to those least responsible for emissions. While advisory opinions like the ICJ are not legally enforceable, Raine said they carry significant weight. "They clarify how international law applies to the climate crisis, and that has ripple effects across national courts, legislative processes and public debates," he said. © 2025 AFP
France 24
14 hours ago
- France 24
A million people sign French petition against bringing back bee-killing pesticide
The so-called "Duplomb law" has stirred public anger for permitting a return of acetamiprid -- a chemical known to be toxic to pollinators such as bees and to ecosystems. It was adopted on July 8 but has not yet come into effect. A 23-year-old master's student launched the petition against the law on July 10, with support quickly snowballing with the backing of many including actors and several left-wing lawmakers. More than 500,000 people signed it in 24 hours from Saturday and Sunday alone. The law's proponents however argue farmers face too much regulation in France as is, and allowing them to use acetamiprid again would help reduce the constraints they face. National Assembly Speaker Yael Braun-Pivet on Sunday ruled out abandoning the legislation, named after the conservative lawmaker who proposed it, as it would "save a certain number of our farmers". The petition's author, Eleonore Pattery, who describes herself as "a future environmental health professional", called the new law a "scientific, ethical, environmental and public health aberration". "It represents a frontal attack on public health, biodiversity, the coherence of climate policies, food security, and common sense," she said. 'Bee killer' Acetamiprid has been banned in France since 2018, but remains legal within the European Union. The insecticide is particularly sought after by beet and hazelnut growers, who say they have no alternative against pests and face unfair competition. On the other hand, beekeepers have branded the chemical "a bee killer". Its effects on humans are also a source of concern but, in the absence of large-scale studies, its risks remain unclear. The petition calls for the "immediate repeal" of the law and a "citizen-led consultation involving health, agricultural, environmental and legal stakeholders". Petitions do not in themselves trigger a review or repeal of the legislation but unprecedented public support may prompt renewed parliamentary discussion on the matter. Under French rules, if a petition reaches 500,000 verified signatures, the National Assembly may choose to hold a public debate limited to the content of the petition itself. Speaker Braun-Pivet told the broadcaster franceinfo on Sunday she would be in favour of such a debate, but lawmakers "could not in any case go back on the law which has been voted through". In late June, ahead of the law's passage, several thousand demonstrators -- including farmers, environmental organisations and scientists -- rallied across France calling for the bill to be withdrawn.
France 24
15 hours ago
- France 24
European powers plan fresh nuclear talks with Iran
Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, "are in contact with Iran to schedule further talks for the coming week", the source said. The trio had recently warned that international sanctions against Iran could be reactivated if Tehran does not return to the negotiating table. Iran's Tasnim news agency also reported that Tehran had agreed to hold talks with the three European countries, citing an unnamed source. Consultations are ongoing regarding a date and location for the talks, the report said. "Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is why Germany, France and the United Kingdom are continuing to work intensively in the E3 format to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear programme," the German source said. Israel and Western nations have long accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran has consistently denied. On June 13, Israel launched a wave of surprise strikes on its regional nemesis, targeting key military and nuclear facilities. The United States launched its own set of strikes against Iran's nuclear programme on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, in Qom province south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz. Kremlin meeting Iran and the United States had held several rounds of nuclear negotiations through Omani mediators before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran. However, US President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities effectively ended the talks. The E3 countries last met with Iranian representatives in Geneva on June 21 -- just one day before the US strikes. Meanwhile on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a surprise meeting in the Kremlin with Ali Larijani, top adviser to Iran's supreme leader on nuclear issues. Larijani "conveyed assessments of the escalating situation in the Middle East and around the Iranian nuclear programme", Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the unannounced meeting. Putin had expressed Russia's "well-known positions on how to stabilise the situation in the region and on the political settlement of the Iranian nuclear programme", he added. Moscow has a cordial relationship with Iran's clerical leadership and provides crucial backing for Tehran but did not swing forcefully behind its partner even after the United States joined Israel's bombing campaign. Snapback mechanism Iran and world powers struck a deal in 2015 called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed significant restrictions on Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. But the hard-won deal began to unravel in 2018, during Trump's first presidency, when the United States walked away from it and reimposed sanctions on Iran. European countries have in recent days threatened to trigger the deal's "snapback" mechanism, which allows the reimposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance by Iran. After a call with his European counterparts on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Western allies had no grounds for reactivating sanctions. "If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the 'snap-back' for which they (have) absolutely no moral (or) legal grounds," Araghchi said on X. However, the German source on Sunday said that "if no solution is reached over the summer, snapback remains an option for the E3". Iran last week said there would be no new nuclear talks with the United States if they were conditioned on Tehran abandoning its uranium enrichment activities. © 2025 AFP
