The problem with making her submit to ANY tests is that old adage in British law - Innocent till proven guilty.
The burden of proof rests with the accuser.
In this case Candace Owens has repeatedly harassed the Macrons with this accusation.
Without getting into the differences of law in France (Napoleonic code) versus USA (British law) Candace has NO RIGHT to force Brigitte to undergo any exam, whether it's an invasive and uncomfortable gynecologic exam or a blood test to determine DNA.
Even if Candace is right - she has NO right to repeatedly and publicly embarrass or harass someone else even someone in the public eye such as the wife of a foreign leader.
None, Zero.
The wife of a public person should have a right to privacy. She is not public property. She owes no explanation to anyone. She deserves to be left alone especially on sensitive and personal aspects of her private life. Her gynecologist's reports do NOT belong to the public.
And I think that is where the legal arguments will go. Persistent harassment. The Macrons will be able to prove that.
Candace will likely demand proof, and that is actually harassment using the law courts aka LAWFARE something the US courts have done to Donald Trump over and over.
That is where the American legal system doesn't protect the victim of harassment very well. And Candace and her lawyers may go there. Hopefully the Macron's will be able to sue the hide off her for forcing such a test and argue further damages and demand all costs plus punitive damages.
Alan Dershowitz (the famous leftist law professor who defended Trump) uses the famous "shoe on the other foot" test.
How would it feel if Trump's wife Melania was forced into court to prove her sex and had to undergo tests because someone in a foreign country was repeatedly harassing her online?
NOT OK right? Shove Melania into a strange dr's office to undergo forcible examination? Make her do a blood draw? Either one could be considered assault and battery if it's not consented to. And consent obtained under duress, is not really consent. It can be argued that it is assault and battery.
We ALL (I hope) felt a great deal of sympathy for Melania when the FBI descended on their home and went thru her underwear drawers! She felt violated! SHE WAS VIOLATED!
So Candace will use every argument to MAKE Brigitte consent to a physical exam. Public opinion may box the Macrons into doing that in order to win the case and shut Candace up finally - but it's a very very bad legal precedent.
Undergoing a test to prove Candace wrong is likely to further give Candace ammo because Candace may continue to harass Brigitte Macron by claiming the tests were not done properly and had a false result.
Depends on how far the courts will allow Candace Owen's right of free speech to infringe on the Macron's rights from being harassed.
I don't think the Macron's owe Candace's team ANYTHING, I think Candace is guilty of harassment and forcing a test should NOT be allowed, because that further infringes on Mrs Macron's rights. It would allow Candace to further bully and harass Mrs. Macron.
Very well said Margery. I think you make a good point of the darker sides of the 1st amendment. In our own country though we do have a plethora of Trump bashing 24/7. Pretty much for 8 years now. Even in the church in places acceptable and sometimes preferred. So this sort of phenomenon for me are what i tend to label as social artifacts. Like loud and powerful trend statements that underscore or highlight attributes about our age. What pertains to our age in all of that.
I'm not exactly sure why Candace has such a focus on Macron. If i had to guess, I believe it is her way of picking a fight with the global left and trying to make an example out of Macron. This could just be social distortion that naturally comes out as a repercussion of how transgenderism mutates in culture. To me, it does seem to be somewhat of an almost Asperger like fixation. Is she Joan of Arc bringing down big bad France? lol. Not sure what the aim is.
I would say that some of her other themes do as well seem to also be social artifact like. Her concern that America does not become blind toward Israel, something I would see has some merit of concern. But the way i view that sort of thing is not whether or not or to what degree America should be supportive of Israel. But rather helping to highlight how tied to Israel America is in ways. Now on that point, i would think the social artifact there would be somewhat along the lines of highlighting some eschatologically important. Having very little to do with Candace's POVs. But just in the sense of it accenting something about America. Like underscoring America as very tied with Israel. A reminder or even an exclamation point in that. At a time when seemingly much of eschatology sees America to not have a place in eschatology...meanwhile, it is being screamed from the rooftops how hitched to Israel we are. And that should factor into how we are looking at eschatology. Its funny, for me that is something like super thunderously loud. But i don't know of anyone else saying that. Maybe Amir does, lol?
Another theme would be Ditty and realms of sex trafficking. Which does imply an even louder theme today with Epstein back in the news. Just noting that as another social artifact like theme Candace seems to be about. By that i don't mean that Candace is prophetic...lol. I just mean that in light of her social reach and beyond, loud social trends do tend to echo from her. I don't really follow Candace. But it would make sense to some degree that a controversial voice loud enough to bring a foreign leader to her country for purpose, suggests if nothing else, the size and richter scale echo power is pretty wide reaching. So I guess i would say that my typical way of considering Candace in the mix, is not so much her positions, but that some themes of hers that gain such attention, could be an indicator of sorts of what can tend to be "tells" on culture potentially used by affect to project growth pains of a nation (America) trapped to some degree in identity crisis. Which strikes me as a somewhat interesting vehicle of time capsule capture for our age. If that makes sense.
Another is Andrew Tate, and perhaps somethin to the effect that we ironically seem to be in ways an alpha male age (in not so good ways--as I believe Candace's support of him to be a sad commentary. But yet, an alpha age as much a soyboy owned by woke culture age (seemingly hopefully transitioning away from that). But it would no doubt seem to be an age super accented by alpha. lol. Maybe not making the best sense, gotta go to bed...lol. Blessings.
www.breitbart.com
closely, if you catch my drift...
