The President of France is Suing Podcast Host Candace Owens
and this is a great topic for comments.
The issue now is whether Candace Owens, the person being sued by the Macrons, has fallen into a legal trap and will be successfully sued, or whether the information she has at least to some degree, will be out in the open.
This page covers some of the allegations but from information available from differing sources.
It does not appear likely that most of what Owens accuses is correct. There are many issues involved which are not anyone else's business. They would not be normal though, if Brigitte Macron was indeed a man. That may develop as a story.
What is a concern is that the leaders of France would have selected and approved the extraordinary presentation that was the Paris Olympics opening ceremony. This is absolutely a demonstration of the 'Babylonian' system the world is currently trapped in as part of its 'fall' but which it is thankfully soon about to rise out of by virtue of the planet's wobbling cycle.
As information comes out about the US president Donald Trump, it is apparent this is a pervert obsessed with sex and in many ways unfit to be the leader of any country. Yet he was voted in by the people.
The question with President Macron and his wife, is does France have a President and his wife who also are in a consciousness of various perversions, and will this be shown to be the case? The peversions relate to the interest in the descriptions of a pedergast boy-only homosexual, and the peculiar choices of artwork by the First Lady which represent Babylonian consciousness.
We had to move this story to the top! Look at the 3 min video to see why.
An Australian Talk Show Host Tells How He Went to School in France for several years
and it was not at all unusual for older women to have a relationship with a much younger man or school age man even with it being 15. It was not unusual.
If you think you are going to go to France and find a 15 year old French male who has not been in a relationship, then you are living in 'la la land'. It is the legal age of consent. In fact it is almost a right of passage for young French men. Or would parents want them trying to get at their 14 year old daughter instead?
I have watched Owen's full video series and it was extremely difficult to watch because of the lack of journalistic professionalism. That is where I first came in on this story.
 We will state empathically that we see no problem at all with an intelligent, mature 15 year old boy who was obviously seriously attracted to his very pretty, young looking 'hot' teacher. Because you are not being shown the photographs of how pretty and slim she was. We also think and know that a French boy of that age, at least as it was back in 1993/94, was much more mature than those in western countries like the USA and England are even now.
Despite that they met and developed a friendship when he was 15, they were both at a very strict and devout Catholic private school.. If they had done anything improper Brigitte would have been fired in disgrace by the school.
Brigitte's marriage had come to an end by 1991 although they did not divorce until much later in the 2000's. She had been married since she was 20 years old, and had 3 children. One was her daughter Laurence who one day said to her mum. "there is a beautiful boy in my class who knows everything about everything. You should meet him".
They did begin a friendship by writing new aspects to a play together, as they met when Brigitte was directing a drama group for a school production. They would meet on Friday nights to write the additional material. They have only said they met at that time, and people have jumped to their own conclusions. They got to know each other in this way, gradually realising their feelings, and they fell in love. They are a rare couple who really love each other. They did not get together until he was 18. As a personal and private relationship, but they do not have to tell you that this is how it was.
The lawyer for the Macrons has said that if Owens continues with these accusations after she has been shown the proof of Brigitte's birth as female, then that constitutes defamation. Well, she has been shown the proof. Right now she is giving a live podcast doubling down on it.
It would be assumed that the Macrons do have the blood test and definitely have hundreds of photos of Brigitte growing up and as a young mother, so surely Owens is aware of this?
Now Take A Look At This.
 ‘You were born a man, you will die a man’: Candace Owens DOUBLES DOWN after Macron lawsuit
Watch 3 mins. It is worth noting this woman's extreme level of driven insistence on this. This is absolutely not normal for a professional "investigative journalist". She's done the series, they've filed a lawsuit. Why is Owens saying this?
She shows a photo of Brigitte, then asks if you need any more evidence she is a man. The answer is probably yes. A photo of Brigitte now at 72 is not evidence.
*The defamation case filed in France earlier was filed by two people. Brigitte and the brother Jean Michel. A person cannot file a lawsuit if they do not exist. It also can't be one person pretending to be two people.
It is tempting to continue writing about 'Candace Owens' who is a Menace to Society
and in a world which enables her to make a career out of it, and become a millionaire from it, this is an issue. Her goal is to hunt down people and shame them publicaly even though her judgment on situations is purely subjective yet held to her heart as if real and also a terrible crime perpetrated on humanity. In reality, a person like this is a crime in itself, and there should be more safeguards in the world to ensure they are not given public platforms AND paid handsomely for it. See the 3 min video above. She is a crazy person.
We have watched Owen's full video series and it was extremely difficult to watch because of the lack of journalistic professionalsm. That is where I first came in on this story.
 Also Watch 5 mins. This is the correct video now, with the Macron's lawyer. (We somehow had the wrong links here before.)
"They have tried to get Candace Owens to...engage constructively with the truth. And each time she has mocked them and she has repeated and doubled down on her false claims." Tom Clare, the attorney for Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron, explains why they sued Candace Owens for defamation.
It is difficult not to address the many videos of people giving their opinions on the Macron's relationship.
We say it is private, it was legal, and it was the reality. They loved each other and eventually married and are still married. It is no-one else's business.
There are a lot of videos whose presenters have completely missed what this is.
They say just by filing the lawsuit Owens has won. That is also how Owens is interpreting this. Presumably there is a planet where that somehow makes sense, but it isn't the reality.
The video commented on is a black guy, he is also making a lot of insulting comments on Mdm Macron's looks - which sounds like he already has a prejudiced view on this - and it also seems to be only the black community which has the interpretation that Owens has won. It may be that he changes his opinion in the video as he learns more. We are really just looking at the variety of opinions. But the issue is not what the opinions are covering, it is the actual case about someone who is continuing to tear someone's reputation to shreds.
For actual lawyers and others it is a serious mistake that Owens has made, and also a 'Thank God someone is standing up to this'. *We will explain further down what the case is actually about and why it seems that Owens has now gone and done exactly what they have said she is doing.
So we'll continue with the view of a simple 'country lawyer' who makes some good comments. This is only 5 mins.
Why Candace Owens Might Lose Everything in France Lawsuit
Watch 5 mins. Good comments and the guy speaking is a lawyer.
The case for defamation that Brigitte had in France and won, then was overturned in July 2025 is that the two women who made the accusations appealed and expressed that they had made this mistake, or said what they said, in good faith, meaning they had not realized it was a mistake. That is basically what it means, but also that a person has a right to say things they are mistaken about.
With the Owens case, she has already been given the proof that she is wrong, and it is the fact that she is continuing with it, doubling down on it, and continuing. So it isn't something done in 'good faith' it is something she is doing regardless of the proof otherwise.
I have a video of a - I don't what is the correct description - well, black lady, 56 years old and she talks about the 'court of public opinion'. Unfortunately, that is what the Macrons have to put up with., and they know that. But this attack is different. This woman has missed that the accusations are so much more than accusations of being transgender.
For this women it is a few minor issues about being called a man, and this woman is opinionated about the relationship and how it started - but that is not in question. But it does highlight the issue of how things like this do indeed (to quote the lawyer) metastasize into very cancerous issues - because that is what this woman video presenter is doing.
The main issue here is that no-one should have a presumed 'right' to be viciously attacking someone as Owens is doing and THANK GOD at last someone is standing up to this.
This woman says that she is 56 years old and gets lots of compliments from younger guys who she calls 'boys' and describes herself as their mother or auntie. Crazy woman who would see herself as that. But she does. And maybe the point is that this woman probably wouldn't get young guys falling for her, and maybe that is where her 'opinions' stem from.
If I was a 56 years old I would not see myself as that, and I would not see compliments or even flirting from a much younger man as unusual. I seriously doubt that I would be in such a situation with a 15 year old, but even if the person was 30 years younger in this example, it would not be at all unusual.
I would not think of him as a 'boy' and I would NEVER see myself as being like an aunt or something - because why should anyone define themselves by age? If I fell in love in some variation of this situation, I would not say to myself "Oh you can't do that you are in 'so and so' category". What I would be, is in love.
She also says if it was her son, she would be upset about it. Guess most would. Even so, this is stuff that parents have to deal with. It could be so much worse. It could be a Prince Harry wanting to marry a Meghan Markle and ruin his life AND damage his family. Brigitte has not ruined Emmanuel's life. He is successful, and they are happy.
We also think that God plays a part in actually 'falling love'. The problem with this world is that relatonships now, from the beginning are not 'in love', they are based on getting into sexual activity as soon as you can. For the Macrons, they fell in love.
The world is not a court for judging morality based on your own viewpoint. It is not our business, and the law says it was legal.
If this was something that did concern you, then okay, you have given your opinion. Now let these people get on with their lives without you constantly giving your opinion.
If it was me in that situation - it is difficult to consider when he was so young, but if it was me - I would make the same decision as Brigitte did.
Candace Owens SUED By President Macron of France -
THANK GOD at last someone is standing up to this.
Firstly, if a person was transgender and all the dreadful things Mdm Macron has been accused of (incest, grooming a minor et cetera) then you would keep quiet and let it pass.
If you are NOT these things then you would absolutely take this court, and if that failed, you would continue to fight for justice.
This is a huge issue because none of us who are female may be able to 'prove' we were born female if someone like Candace Owens decides to not believe it. Because that is what this is. This work is on the side of justice.
But also Owens appears to be one of the peculiarly American style evangelical bible bashing type fundamentalist 'Christians', and although the case is not saying that, this kind of thing is a real problem for humanity.
However, it is difficult to prove something is Defamation in a US court, which should be very worrying for everyone.
The case is not about proving if what Owens said was true,
it is about whether they can prove Owens had 'RECKLESS DISREGARD for the truth'.
The Macron's lawyers have said that Owens has been shown the proof, and if she continues to 'recklessly disregard' that, then she proves the issue of why she is being sued. The Macrons should be able to win this case.
Immediately after learning she is being sued, Owens is presenting another podcast making all the same claims again. See the 3 minute video above. It isn't her immediate podcast after learning she was being sued, but she did say exactly the same things.
To continue in this manner would seem that Owens thinks she is defending that her claims are true, despite that she has been given proof they are not true. .That does look like a 'reckless disregard for the truth'.
That seems to be precisely what she has just done, and will keep on doing regardless of the proof provided to her that shows otherwise.
Owens has stated that she would stake her entire career on this story, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary which was requested. That is, there is proof that her claims are false, and she is still continuing. The case would appear to meet the standard of 'reckless disregard for truth'. The other case for defamation is that Owens intentionally lied. Owen's almost fanatical broadcasts on this seem to indicate she is convinced it is true despite all and every evidence to the contrary.
Mdm Macron's birth certificate has been provided along with many photos from her childhood showing the little girl Brigitte existed. For Madame Macron to be the brother as a transgender figure, there has to be some account for what happened to the little girl, in order to be 'replaced' by her brother, as she has not died.
We considered adding a video commentary, but it needs to be constructive. We do learn some points though.
The accusations against Mdm Macron are considerably more serious than if she is transgender, and the male presenter of the vidoe we wanted to add seems to be completely missing this. There are opinions to what degree slander such as has been promoted by Owens can hurt and upset a person. It is not possible to calculate the suffering that someone can be put through by something such as this. It becomes bullying and one of the outcomes of bullying can be suicide. What Owens is doing, is bullying.
The birth certificate was released, and people said if they had done that in the first place, this would never have continued. But the birth certificate has been released and it is still continuing.
Owens has a social media post still saying she 'stakes her entire reputation as a jounalist' on this, (she is not a qualified journalist and this is proven by her 'Becoming Brigitte' series which we have watched). She continues to say she has 'never seen anything like this in in her life' referring to the lawsuit. Interesting, as the lawyers have said that they do expect her to continue, with the added note that by continuing after being given the proof otherwise, that is defamation. She was expected to continue.
It is true that public figures do get derogatory comments, and there are unkind comments on Trump and his wife, but there is nothing that equals what this is, especially as this relates to respectable French families and in the consciousness that is particularly 'French'. The Trump family was never 'respectable'. It is possible Owens made good comments on the Israel situation as the male presenter says, but that has nothing to do with the accusations against Mdm Macron. Perhaps this male presenter has a crush on Owens. He also agrees with some of what she says which is really based on prejudice, and could definitely be a bias..
However, we learn from him that Owens is 'filthy rich' (atuclly her net worth is at $5 million) and married to a very wealthy man (his networth is between $180-$240 million). which probably explains a great deal. But if he is wealthy, is it possible she is promoting views that any wealthy donor can expect of those he is financing?
As for the male presenter, he does seem to have missed the point when he says,"get a thicker skin lady". The accusations are horrifically worse than just about 'transgender' and there is little doubt that Owens is making this a very vicious and even personal attack on the Macrons.
There is a point why this sort of thing is allowed to happen at all, and perhaps there is no legal recourse available. In some countries it is against the law to insult the monarch or leader and perhaps this is a fair rule. Look how people use this 'loophole' to destroy others in business and politics. Look at how Trump constantly uses this response.
Overall, I wanted to use this news source, but the male presenter (Saagar Enjeti) has lessened my opinion of the value of the news source which needs to be unbiased and fair. The case is not as trivial as 'get a thicker skin, lady'.
I watched the 'Becoming Brigitte' series as a person who only knew the name of Owens but had never seen her work. I found it very difficult to watch how she was presenting the information. My immediate impression was that it was unprofessional journalisim, and that it amounted to what seemed like a personal vendetta. It was presented with outright malice and with prejudice. It was very difficult to watch the series. I have since done more research. My impression has been that Owens overrates her importance, and relevance as a "journalist", in the same way that Meghan Markle overrated her 'value' to the British Royal Family and then to the world. Owens is demanding the President of a country answer to her as if she is from 60 Minutes, not an online content creator. The photos we have of Brigitte were never shown when the series was presented. A pretty young woman with her first child for example.
It also seems likely that Owens is some kind of 'fundamentalist Christian'. Anyone who has experienced some of that kind of attitude, will recognise an issue that may also be present here.
Here's some information on Owens' husband.
"George Thomas Stahel Farmer (born 15 December 1989) is a British-American entrepreneur and businessman. He is the former chairman of Turning Point UK and the former CEO of Parler and Parlement Technologies. He's the devout Christian founder of the controversial Parler app, After reports surfaced that Parler was allegedly used to coordinate the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the app was removed from large platforms, including Apple, Amazon and Google.
Farmer asked Owens to marry him during a FaceTime call on Dec. 29, 2018, just 17 days after meeting her for the first time.The whirlwind romance meant Owens and Farmer did not date before getting engaged.
“We hadn't gone on a date. We had not talked about marriage or the future or anything,” Farmer told Fradd. “It was very much a God thing. The Lord was in control of that whole process.”
*Owens says she stakes her entire reputation on the Brigitte Macron story, and continues with personal insults on the appearance of Mdm Macron and her family. She also continues with comments and accusations about how she first met Emmanual.
In France the legal age of consent is 15 which means in December of 1992 he was 15. But what is not shown is that Brigitte at that time was a very young looking and very pretty lady who a lot of teenage boys were likely to have a crush on.
It is a matter of perspective. If you represent Brigitte as a 40 year old not so attractive transgender who decided to groom a 15 year old boy, the story could look one way.
If you saw that it was actually a very pretty, young looking, slim woman who many of the boys had a crush on, then that is another matter.
Legal opinion on this. Transcript. (Lional Nation) Comment says 'show us a picture of Brigitte as a young woman with her baby" so we have included that.
"See you in court!" Candace Owens fires back at Brigitte Macron.
Piers Morgan weighs in that Owens is going to be owing the Macrons many, many millions because of her accusations. Most of the informed opinions are that she will be 'going down' for this.
Vicious crazy eyed hate filled broadcasts continue from Owens. It is most likely that the Macrons would not have sued without very firm evidence behind them. Yet there are many fans who think Owens is a 'truth seeking' journalist for all of whatever she presents, despite that this does seem to be a witch hunt against the Macrons. All of them believe that there are powerful 'elites' who 'get away' with things, and now barely educated Candace Owens is going to expose this crime, and probably can't wait for the accolades coming her way.
To us we don't see a 'truth seeking warriour'. We just don't. Maybe that is because of the way she does this. We see a spoilt woman who wants fame, wants her own way, and has vicious 'fundamentalist' viewpoints where 'everyone' is evil except for "Christians" who follow the Bible.
Owens appears to epitomize the kind of religious based hatred and evil that is poisoning this planet. It is hoped the Macrons do have all the evidence they need and in the legal wording that can be used to twist what a case is about. And why wouldn't they have the evidence. They have not provided many photos but maybe they have waited to see how far Owens will go with her accusations, before responding. That includes pedophilia, incest and perhaps she included murder. Would she hang herself?
It is very likely they have hundreds of photos of the brother and sister together and throughout Brigitte's younger life. This is a crazy allegation to make and to pursue so viciously, and with the hate and prejudice simply oozing out of her. Even if she was basically right, none of this is correct way to go about it.
What would be appropriate justice for this? Damages in the many millions, maybe hundreds of millions, and a prison sentence for Candace Owens.
This story on the legal battle is now also on a separate easy to reference page.
Whatever anyone thinks about the various aspects that come up with this issue, none of them are what the lawsuit is about.
We think this is their private lives, they did nothing illegal, the accusations against Brigitte are atrocious - but that is not what is being challenged in court - and actually having a woman hound them with stuff across the planet is really the issue that is wrong here. No-one has the right to present a slanderous opinion to the entire world based on what that person 'intuits', believes, thinks, or can benefit from saying is true. As someone said, 'free speech does not give the right to slander others.'
We would like to add more videos offering a balanced perspective on this topic, which is about defamatory remarks, not whether there was issue about how their relationship began. There is no legal case about that.
What is disturbing is the vitriol of many comments. The comments are prejudiced and ill informed and also accepting the first assumption that Brigitte was an older man when she met Emmanuel. There are a great many haters in the world, and we don't want to support that.
However, defamation and the sheer about of vitriolic slander involved in this is a terrible thing for anyone to go through. There should be something that makes people think twice before going off the deep end and saying outrageous things. We do not choose to promote slandering others, especially when proof has been given. If it is proven otherwise, then so be it, but that still does not make it right to behave so insultingly to other human beings based on what someone "thinks" is true.
Internet Comments.
"She is a looney troll. I hope she gets sued so badly that she has to shut all her crap down."
"I am glad she’s being sued because she has been spreading these rumors for a long time and all because she’s a grifter. It’s about time someone holds her accountable."
"She says that she is God fearing , why would you want to destroy someone with propaganda and lies. Let the truth comes out over time . She violated the law of Christianity."
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom to defame or freedom from consequences."
"This lawsuit couldn’t happen to a nastier woman. Good for the Macrons for finally putting their collective foot down." "
I hope the Macrons prevail financially in court. People like Owens need to be held accountable for this type of slander, crazy or otherwise."
What is happening with the 'really angry Candace' is also a matter of consciousness
and covers many aspects that relate to the consciousness of the 'Future World' in the 'positive' Energy Stream, and those in the 'negative' energy stream. We have also covered how this work followed a trail to discover where the actual lineage and teachings that Jesus Christ was from, went to, and that they continued onwards to today, see the article further down.
There are 2 energy streams, one is from God Source and the other is in the reverse but also answers to what is basically a non-human AI system. The common denominator is being born into a biological body, both are born into a biological body, but one stream is human, the other is not. It is artificial. Perhaps it is 'sub human'. It mostly operates from senses, so it can be motivated by sex, but does not 'feel' as in the ability to feel empathy and compassion, nor has the ability to be able to see a 'bigger picture'. It is more self absorbed and judgmental.
Having found the lineage we chose to interpret some of the information we had access to. *We did go to the Source of the work and brought back as much material as we could. We have provided that information but it was always an issue when it went against 'new age' thinking, so we tried to work carefully around that. Perhaps we would now say that that type of thinking and consciousness issues from the AI.
For many reasons. we were also aware that individuals had to come to the discovery for themselves. If they were AI run - run by programmes - also seeing other images from the AI side and so on, then they would either have to question that or remain with it.
In regard to the Brigitte Macron story, it would be disappointing if the Macron side had not gathered the required material, but it would insane if they were not aware they could not get away with this if the allegations were true.
It would be a great disservice to humanity if the opportunities here to expose an absolute evil poisoning of consciousness within humanity was not able to be demonstrated.
This issue of judgmental hate, slander and bullying is an issue which affects many of us, including that it has affected myself, and there is absolutely nothing anyone on the receiving end can do about it.
Mdm Brigitte Macron Sues Candace Owens.
It is hoped they have the material to succeed with this, as defamation is a terrible and extremely harmful issue. We take note of all the 'negative' ones who jump on the bandwagon of condemning another. Again there is the 'Benny Show' with no end to the evil things being thrown at the person being attacked here, and the endless comments of judgmental people beneath the youtube videos.
We are not saying we know one way or the other, but commenting on the evil of how people sit in judgment and do not respond with empathy, compassion, understanding and an open mind before condemning.
CNN report.
Owens has made a new episode of her programme this time commenting on being sued and spewing out hatred and aggression. But then, she is a "Christian" and has the right to be like this. In her programme on being sued, she remains the same rude, insulting person we have already been shocked by. It has to be realised that this is not limited to being an accusation that Mdm Macron is allegedly transgender but within that context there are some extremely unsavoury things Mdm Macron is also accused of being.
In addition Owens is making extremely unkind, even vicious personal comments about how Brigitte Macron looks - which is pretty darned fantastic for a lady of 72 years old. It seems Owens is going to continue in this unquestionably unprofessional manner, most likely now adding more, and increasing the claim of those suing her for damages, because she has never provided any proof of anything, yet still carries on in the same defamatory and insulting way.
The claim is that Brigitte was born a man, but my understanding is that Owens has been shown the proof with the birth certificate that Brigitte was born female. If a person then continues with the same defamatory comments even though they have been shown the proof, then doing that is defamation. Ironically, even Owens' in answer to the lawsuit, mentions that in the US it is about the person defaming another then continuing to defame after being shown the proof - and she is still doing it in that same broadcast.
If I was the Macrons I would wait until this woman has incrimminated herself, then go in with the lawsuit in the USA with all the proof anyone could ever ask for. Not of course for providing a 'simple answer' that this woman has no right to 'demand' anyway, but for the maximum turning of the screws for what this insolent youtuber has done. Hopefully that is what they did. Owens needs to be called out on doing something like this.
I don't want to add a link to her programme. We understand she has been shown the proof that Brigitte was born a woman, and that Brigitte Macron is the same Brigitte. She has not only been asked by the President of France to stop making defamatory accusations, but has also been asked by the President of the USA to stop doing it, yet she continues.
In my own opinion Owens is horrible to watch and radiates a nasty but also very spoilt personality. Someone who may have grown up as everyone's darling and thus believes she is. The lawyers for the Macrons seem to think Owens will continue to double down and her every move probably works increasingly in their favour.
She additionally accuses Brigitte of being a bully, accuses her of bullying her husband - presumably her husband does not agree because he is the one suing Owens - and she accuses Brigitte of grooming her husband, and she makes this accusation with real malice in her eyes, so for her it is the 'truth', even though it isn't. She expresses astonishment that they would fly to the USA for this lawsuit, but would not have her fly to France to interview them. Why would the President of France be manipulated into giving an interview to a nobody, not qualified in journalism, online influencer with a podcast?
That statement was about angling to get an interview with the President of France and his wife, to discuss what gender his wife is and send her ratings sky high. That is what that was about. Being in the US for the lawsuit is a very different matter
If Owens conducted an interview, she has already displayed the same type of insolence as Meghan Markle displayed to the Royal Family and the late Queen.
Owens has basically said to them, through her legal team, that she has offered them some questions and an interview, and because they ignored her demands and did not reply, she is going to continue with the defamation, including that she might do a second series -
if you, the President of France, do not answer her demands for answers.
Do you see what is wrong here?!
Do people with an online presence really have the right to do this kind of thing to someone when they feel like it? Do people have the right to say wrongful things about another, things that will damage peoples' lives, including insults, and there is no recourse for this? That would be a shocking reflection on our world.
.
This is Brigitte When She Met Emmanuel Macron.
Please see the in depth article on Brigitte Macron
A lady now in her 70's and past her youthful prime, so why compare her photo at her age now with the 18 year old Jean Michel? She is not just being accused of being transgender but the real accusations are considerably worse. Photos exist of her as a little girl through to her twenties and to 39 when she first met Macron and show an extremely pretty lady who looks very young, with a natural free of make up look.
She is also very slim with a figure given as 35, 26, 35. She is 5' 6' and weighs 126lbs or 57 kgs. Did anyone check how tall Jean Michel is? And do not foget that the age for these accusations is how Brigitte looked at the age of around 25. He has to look like this picture on the left not as a senior citizen over 65. . There are plenty of photos of the little girl Brigitte, but there are not many photos available of Jean Michel the brother - who at 18 is not at all pretty.
Candace Owens, who viewed this as a 'career breaking' story for her, is not a journalist. She dropped out of studies after a year. She poses questions that would issue from a person who has no knowledge whatsoever about France. She asks about why 'Claude' is part of Brigitte's name, and she asks why she is wearing scarves. Has Candace never seen a French woman before? And like it or not, or whether she approves or not, 15 is the legal age in France, and truly Owens must be very ignorant about France to even comment on that.
The little girl exists, and no youngest sister died.
However, Brigitte is not the missing person. She has always been around from being a little girl toddler in a photo alongside her brother, right through to being 72. The little girl exists, and no little girl died. Jean Michel is not in many photos. Of course the answer to that is that he is now Brigitte, and was Brigitte when she met Macron. Others from the school said that all the boys had a crush on the new teacher Mdme Auzieres. So again, the photo of 18 year old Jean-Michel shows a face that is never going to produce a pretty lady.
But in reality, we are looking at how something like this extremely unkind approach to a news story takes over people's senses. What is the problem these people have? The story first came about from a self styled psychic and medium who gave the story to a blogger.
Madame Macron successfully sued these two in 2024 but in 2025 that was overruled.
.gif) The court in France actually ruled that it is not illegal for people to SAY another person, who is a woman, was born a man.
That is not considered a slander, because in these days we all have to accept the hundred different genders and not offend any of them. That is a Talmud teaching. The issues are really around the age difference with her husband, which when linked to this accusation create a very disturbing situation for anyone to find themselves in.
There is now, no longer any legal recourse available to anyone facing something like this
because of all the anti-biblical interpretation about genders. It is not far different from allowing men to compete in women's sport. So what is being said is far more awful, and the comments under some of the videos are a murderous witch hunt of condemnation. That is what is awful.
So now there is a youtube channel called the Benny Show coming in on this - without checking facts or doing research, yet jumping in to accuse those involved in a crime. and in amongst the awful things this person is saying is that he is going to assume the legal age in France is 18, so therefore at 15, these two people were doing an absolutely dreadful thing, and a crime, a rape crime.
BUT the legal age is 15 not 18 in France.
Once again an ignorant American is waging a self-righteous judgmental war against people in other countries.
For the record, the legal age in the UK is 16. In Australia it is 16.
Brigitte’s daughter, attorney Tiphaine Auzière said regarding allegations against her mother: "I have concerns about the level of society when I hear what is circulating on social networks about my mother being a man," according to the New York Post.
Emmanuel addressed the rumors against his wife on International Women's Day, saying, "The worst thing is false information". He added: "People eventually believe them and disturb you, even in your private life."
Where possible please post videos or links to social media.
and
|