François-Noël Buffet speaks during the General Assembly on Territorial Democracy in 2012. In a gray suit and dark tie, he already appears in an institutional setting, fourteen years before the controversy over his candidacy for the Defender of Rights. Credit: UMP Senate group / Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0).
Parliament approved the appointment of François-Noël Buffet on July 21. Emmanuel Macron chose him to succeed Claire Hédon as France’s Defender of Rights. The LR senator remains strongly contested by associations and left-wing elected officials. They believe his record is incompatible with an authority tasked with protecting freedoms and combating discrimination.
How Parliament Scrutinized This Appointment
The Senate’s Law Committee heard François-Noël Buffet on July 21. Members of the National Assembly had heard him and voted six days earlier. The combined result of the two committees shows 43 favorable opinions and 39 unfavorable ones, out of 82 votes cast. With seven blank or invalid ballots, 89 parliamentarians took part in the vote.
This review does not work like a simple majority election. For certain important offices, Article 13 of the Constitution allows the relevant committees to block the president’s choice. Negative votes must then reach three-fifths of the votes cast.
The blocking threshold was set at 50 unfavorable opinions. The 39 negative votes therefore did not prevent the process from moving forward. However, Parliament’s favorable opinion does not constitute the legal act of appointment. Emmanuel Macron, who proposed the senator on July 7 on the Prime Minister’s recommendation, can now appoint him by decree. Until that act, François-Noël Buffet remains the candidate set to succeed Claire Hédon. His six-year term is ending and cannot be renewed.
Why His Political Record Worries Opponents
The opposition is not about the regularity of the process. It concerns the fit between the candidate’s record and the institution’s mission. The morning of his Senate hearing, several organizations gathered outside the Luxembourg Palace. They included AIDES, Act Up Paris, SOS Racisme, Sidaction, Utopia 56, and the Comede. In their joint statement, they say his past positions could weaken the trust of people exposed to discrimination.
The criticism rests on specific political choices. In 2013, François-Noël Buffet voted against opening marriage to same-sex couples. In March 2024, he abstained in the Congress vote. That vote enshrined the guaranteed freedom to have an abortion in the Constitution. The mobilized organizations also cite his opposition to opening medically assisted reproduction to all women. They also point to his restrictive positions on state medical aid.
In the National Assembly, Green lawmaker Marie-Charlotte Garin told him: “Your résumé is simply incompatible with the job.” The issue raised by opponents is concrete. A person facing discrimination must be able to contact the Defender of Rights without doubting its impartiality. This applies in particular to sexual orientation, origin, or immigration status.
The mobilization also took the form of a petition and a platform for contacting lawmakers. As of July 21, AIDES claimed more than 150,000 signatures and more than 12,000 messages sent to elected officials. These figures are the organizers’; one signature and one message do not necessarily represent two different people.
The Candidate Says He Has Evolved
François-Noël Buffet counters this political record by distinguishing between his beliefs as an elected official and the duties of the Defender of Rights. During his July 15 hearing, he said that the application of the law would guide his decisions. He also promised complete independence for the authority. “Truth has no political color,” he told lawmakers.
On same-sex marriage, the senator acknowledged that his position had changed. He described his 2013 opposition as a doubt at the time about the consequences of the reform rather than its principle. Bruno Retailleau had said the rule of law would be “neither immutable nor sacred.” When questioned about those remarks, François-Noël Buffet said he did not share that view.
These answers shift the debate without ending it. They commit François-Noël Buffet to carrying out the role differently from the way he fought certain parliamentary battles. For his supporters, the independence required by the post is enough to separate the two roles. For his critics, a declared change of heart does not by itself restore trust. That will have to be measured against the institution’s opinions, recommendations, and actions.
An Independent Authority Working With the Most Vulnerable
Created in 2011 and enshrined in the Constitution, the Defender of Rights is an independent administrative authority. Filing a complaint is free. It is open to users of public services, children whose rights are not respected, and victims of discrimination. It also protects whistleblowers and acts on the ethics of security professionals.
The institution is therefore not limited to publishing general principles. Its lawyers handle complaints about schools, housing, social benefits, health care, and dealings with law enforcement. According to the official presentation of its teams, nearly 250 people work at its Paris headquarters. More than 570 delegates also receive the public in mainland France and overseas territories.
Its holder is appointed for six years. The term is neither renewable nor revocable and is incompatible with any other office. These guarantees protect the Defender of Rights from political pressure once in place. They also give particular weight to the initial choice: Parliament will not be able to revise its opinion according to future decisions.
The Jacques Toubon Precedent, An Argument but Not Proof
François-Noël Buffet’s supporters invoke Jacques Toubon’s term. This former minister and figure on the right served as Defender of Rights from 2014 to 2020. His partisan background did not prevent the institution from taking firm positions toward successive governments. The example shows that a political career does not mechanically determine how the role is carried out.
It does not, however, make the next term a foregone conclusion. People, contexts, and decisions differ. The comparison mainly highlights the twofold test awaiting François-Noël Buffet. He will have to put the office’s legal independence into practice and convince the people concerned that they can continue to bring cases to the institution.
Parliament’s favorable opinion illustrates this tension without, by itself, amounting to consensus on the candidate. The appointment decree will come before the new Defender of Rights takes its first steps. Those first actions will show whether the promise of impartiality can withstand the distrust expressed even before he takes office.