Contre « le permis de tuer » pour tous ! Charles Gave reçoit Arnaud Upinsky.

The speaker, Arnaud Hupinski, author of "Le permis de tuer pour tous" (The Permit to Kill for All), expresses deep concern over recent legislation in France regarding euthanasia, which he views as a legal and philosophical aberration. He argues that laws should not encroach upon fundamental aspects of human existence like life and death, which he believes are not fully understood by humanity. Hupinski draws parallels between the beginning of life (abortion) and the end of life (euthanasia), both representing profound existential questions that society is attempting to legislate without adequate comprehension. He criticizes the proposed law for inverting established moral and legal principles. Actions previously considered crimes, such as assisting suicide or killing, are being legalized and even encouraged. Conversely, opposing these legalized practices could lead to legal repercussions. Hupinski posits that all laws fundamentally stem from two core principles: love for one's neighbor and the prohibition of killing. He asserts that current legislation undermines this foundational "do not kill" tenet by eroding personal conscience, which he believes is the true basis of morality, rather than written laws. Hupinski uses the example of Simone Veil, who, despite enacting the abortion law, referred to it as a "tragedy" and later regretted its evolution from a possibility to a widespread practice. He argues that the proposed euthanasia law transforms human beings into commodities, reducing them to disposable products to be managed administratively. This, he claims, dismantles the moral barrier of "you shall not kill." He laments the silence of major institutions—religious authorities, proponents of Enlightenment philosophy, and human rights advocates—who, in principle, should oppose such legislation. He suggests a "trickery of language," where terms like "end of life" replace "death" and "aid in dying" replaces "euthanasia," to obscure the true nature of the law. He believes the law's authors deliberately used this jargon because a frank French articulation would be unacceptable to public conscience, thus making the law inherently self-refuting and criminal. Hupinski labels the law a "crime against humanity," arguing that any government that facilitates the destruction of its population is criminal. He attributes the widespread societal "stupefaction" and silence to a fear of speaking out, comparing it to the slow degradation of individuals who compromise their principles over time. He criticizes the Catholic hierarchy for their perceived inaction, suggesting they are more concerned with aligning with political power than upholding fundamental truths. He analyzes the legislative text, pointing out the deceptive framing of "freedom of a chosen end of life" as an obligation to enter a process that is neither free nor chosen. He questions the identity and motives of those pushing these laws, suggesting they operate behind the scenes, using euphemisms to mask their intentions. He likens the situation to a crime investigation, where the "weapon" is language and the motive is obscured. Hupinski challenges the notion of the "sovereign people" as the basis for this law, arguing that true sovereignty lies with the individual. He traces the chain of authority from the National Assembly to the Constitution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and ultimately to natural and sacred law, asserting that no human law can supersede these fundamental principles. He contends that deputies lack the mandate to vote on laws that violate natural and sacred law, particularly the commandment "you shall not kill." He highlights the legal paradox: while current law mandates assistance to those in danger, the proposed euthanasia law criminalizes any hindrance to the process. He calls this an inversion of morality and legal principles. He argues that the National Assembly, by preparing to vote on such a law, is constituting itself as an "association of wrongdoers." He asserts that jurists should act to expose this illegality, as the law itself is currently contrary to existing legal frameworks. Hupinski emphasizes that individuals have the right and responsibility to condemn this law, just as they can affirm mathematical truths. He calls for moral and legal pressure on each deputy, suggesting that personal interest, rather than morality, is what can influence them. He advocates for "name and shame" tactics, similar to public pillories, to hold them accountable. He believes that when individuals act with conviction and truth, those who are in the wrong will falter. He laments the pervasive fear among the French intellectual and bourgeois classes, who he believes are afraid of losing their social standing or privileges, and would have collaborated during wartime. He contrasts this with the historical ideal of a "good death" and the honor once accorded to it. He sees the current societal fear as a sign of a return to barbarism, where the elderly and vulnerable are treated as disposable. He criticizes the framing of abortion as a success, highlighting historical alternatives like the "tapis roulant" (revolving door) for unwanted children, which he argues were more humane. He sees the inclusion of abortion in the Constitution, met with general acclaim, as a symptom of a society that has lost its moral compass. He attributes this to a militarized system that discourages dissent and penalizes those who speak out, comparing it to the "delit d'entrave" (obstruction offense) in the euthanasia law. Hupinski concludes by calling for a general mobilization and a renewed commitment to fundamental values, logic, and the French language. He believes that by defending human dignity and the sanctity of life and death, France can regain its moral leadership and serve as an example to the world. He urges individuals to take personal responsibility, to act collectively, and to challenge those in power who are preparing to enact what he considers a crime against humanity. He stresses that the fight is not just political but existential, concerning the very essence of humanity and its respect for life and death.