Aulas’s Plea: A Symbol Against Violence and a Call for Reflection
The tragic death of Quentin Deranque, a 23-year-old nationalist activist, brutally beaten to death in the streets of Lyon, has sent shockwaves across France and deeply impacted the 2026 municipal election campaign in Lyon. Reactions have been swift, accusations are mounting, and calls for calm are multiplying as the investigation continues. A tribute march for the victim is scheduled for Saturday, prompting discussions with the prefecture and a plea from Mayor Grégory Doucet to prohibit it.
In an exclusive op-ed published by ‘actu Lyon’ this Thursday, Jean-Michel Aulas, a prominent figure and candidate for the Lyon mayoralty, has made a poignant appeal to the city’s mayor, Grégory Doucet, to display Quentin’s portrait on the facade of the City Hall. Aulas’s statement underscores a deeper concern about the escalating rhetoric and political climate in the city and beyond.
“Hear the Call for Calm” from Quentin’s Parents
Aulas begins his address with a somber reflection on Quentin’s untimely death: “Today, I think of Quentin. At 23, one should have life ahead of them. No young man, no young woman should become a name in a newspaper. No mother, no father should have to mourn the murder of their child.” He extends his deepest condolences and support to Quentin’s family and to all residents of Lyon, emphasizing that the most respectful way to honor Quentin’s parents is to heed their call for calm.
Aulas believes this tragedy will leave a lasting mark on Lyon. He expresses concern that while professionals of controversy have already begun to disrupt tributes to Quentin, Lyon must rise to the occasion. “I solemnly call on the mayor to display Quentin’s portrait on the front of our City Hall,” Aulas declares. “Through this symbol, Lyon will not only honor the memory of one of its sons: it will mark its implacable refusal of violence and hatred. For we cannot simply ‘turn the page’ as one would close a file.”
The Pre- and Post-Tragedy: A Call for Profound Change
Aulas argues that there must be a clear distinction between a “before” and an “after” this tragedy. The “before” was characterized by the normalization of aggressive language, excessive one-upmanship, and a political comedy so inconsequential that it has spiraled into tragedy. The “after” demands a clear-eyed examination of the consequences of such words, the permissions granted by these spectacles, and the condemnations inherent in ambiguities and renunciations.
He asserts that a total, absolute, nuanced, and unreserved condemnation of physical violence is insufficient. There must also be the courage to condemn a more insidious form of violence: the violence of discourse, innuendo, and symbols. “It is this violence that incites, justifies, and fatally produces the violence that cost Quentin his life,” Aulas states, drawing a direct link between rhetoric and real-world consequences.
Political violence, he contends, is never an isolated accident but the culmination of a climate, a cowardice, an acclimatization. “Blows do not emerge from a vacuum. They are rooted in imaginations saturated with hostility, in words that dehumanize, in representations that transform the adversary into an enemy to be shot down.”
The Erosion of Democratic Dialogue
Aulas cites examples of this dangerous rhetoric, including protesters beheading a puppet of a political opponent, political parties trivializing terms like “fascism,” “genocide,” or “dictator,” and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s exhortations to his supporters to “go and physically attack” those he designates as enemies. Each instance, he argues, where radicalism transforms into extremism for stylistic effect or political gain, represents a broken dam. Each time invective replaces argument, caricature replaces discussion, and threats replace fair confrontation, a piece of democracy erodes. And when the last dam breaks, humanity itself is directly threatened.
Aulas questions how society has reached a point where it must reaffirm such obvious truths. “Yesterday, we were still wondering who was part of the republican arc or not. Today, we have reached the point where we wonder if human life has the same value for everyone. If compassion depends on a label. If indignation varies according to the political orientation of the victim. This question alone should alarm us to the risk of our society tipping over.”
A Call for Responsibility and a Clear Choice
Aulas issues a direct appeal to all those who speak in the public debate – political leaders, elected officials, activists, editorialists, influencers – to recognize their shared responsibility in shaping the prevailing climate. He emphasizes that merely changing slogans is not enough; a fundamental shift in individual behavior is required. “It is now our responsibility to clearly choose a side,” he urges, asserting that there are only two camps.
On one side are those who unequivocally condemn violence from all sources, and on the other, those who minimize, relativize, or excuse it based on the victim’s ideology. One side breaks clearly with extremes, while the other does not rule out electoral alliances for a few seats. “On one side, the Republic – on the other, chaos.”
This, Aulas concludes, is not an ordinary partisan divide but a fundamental dividing line. The future of France, beyond the legitimate political quarrels, depends on the outcome of this common struggle. “Either we relearn to oppose without hating each other, to debate without destroying each other, to convince without designating targets. Or we capitulate to violence by letting it take possession of our streets, our minds, our lives.”
This is the choice everyone must make and the responsibility everyone must assume today. While the perpetrators of Quentin’s murder will be judged by justice, Aulas asserts that “the perpetrators of the brutalization of our democracy, and their allies of circumstance or conviction, will be judged by History.”
Source: Jean-Michel Aulas
