And so on the pages of vigile.net and l'Autrejournal the memory of Paul Rose is being raised to that of a romantic patriotic warrior, whose involvement in a murder is mostly beside the point.
There is little doubt that the FLQ would be branded a terrorist organization would it exist in present-day Quebec, but there is a reluctance in Quebec's media to use the term, because many in the media share the ideals of the FLQ, if not the methods.
Look at the headlines in Quebec francophone media including Radio-Canada and the reluctance to use the " T " word.
Le felquiste Paul Rose est mort
Exit le felquiste Paul Rose, complice malgré lui de Trudeau et de ...
La mort de Paul Rose, celle d'un doux guerrier
Le militant nationaliste québecois Paul Rose est mort
L'ancien felquiste Paul Rose est mort
I didn't cull the above headlines, they were the first that appeared in a search on Google News in French .
Now look on the English side;
FLQ terrorist Paul Rose, key player in 1970 October Crisis, dies at 69
A convicted murderer and an unrepentant terrorist, pockets of ...
It seems that in Quebec, as in many, many parts of the world, one man's terrorist is another man's liberator.
And so the death of Paul Rose has awoken all those purs et durs who view Rose as a hero, including Quebec solidaire's Amir Khadir who proposed honoring Rose with a motion in the National Assembly.
It's too bad that after some reflection and a sea of bad Press, Khadir backed off the idea. It would have been delicious to see such a motion presented and defeated with but one vote in favour and perhaps a few members, Rose sympathizers, fleeing the Assembly in face of the vote!"Amir Khadir, one of two members of the pro-sovereignty Quebec solidaire, promises to table a motion for him in the national assembly next week.
“This is someone who is significant to the independence movement,” Khadir told The Canadian Press when asked about Rose’s passing.
“You can share the reservations he had about his past in the FLQ, but no one can question his sincerity, his devotion, his integrity, his intellectual honesty.”" Link
To Khadir, like many other hard-line separatists, Rose's contribution to the independence movement far outweighs the insignificant and pesky murder of Pierre Laporte and like Quebec's most revered writer, Victor-Lévy Beaulieu, the Laporte murder was just a bit of collateral damage;
It seems that Mr. Beaulieu is one of the more literate and erudite proponents of violence in favour of Quebec independence."In kidnapping Minister Pierre Laporte, the Chénier cell which included Paul Rose, highlighted something we forget all too easily today: Pierre Laporte was in bed with organized crime, as was the Liberal Party in which he was a minister, and that the members of the Chenier cell wanted him to confess to that fact." -Victor-Lévy Beaulieu Link{fr}
VLB.... Laporte responsible for his own kidnapping
Like Victor-Lévy Beaulieu, there remains a dedicated cadre of separatists to whom Rose will always remain a hero and labeling him a terrorist or murderer is nothing more than a question of perspective."I've always thought that Quebec independence could be achieved much more easily by adopting the methods of Gandhi....
But in the late 1960s and early 1970s we witnessed "liberators" favouring terrorism over civil disobedience. Quebec, acting similarly, had only to participate in the liberation struggle as practiced in the West."-Victor-Lévy Beaulieu Link{fr}
Defenders of Paul Rose put great stock in the fact that he wasn't actually present when the murderous deed was done, something that Rose himself refused to acknowledge, preferring to accept the collective guilt for the murder as an act of solidarity with his co-conspirators. Others proclaim that Laporte was killed by 'accident' a sad and convenient attempt to avoid culpability. Link"We note that the term "terrorist" is relative.
Paul Rose, committed terrorist acts, he was tried and convicted. He served his sentence and history has judged. But to call him a "terrorist" within the bloody meaning of the term without considering the historical, political and philosophical context of October '70, it is intellectually dishonest. -Serge Charbonneau" Link{fr}
To Paul Rose, those defenders needn't have bothered massaging his reputation, he was never remorseful in the least and went to his death at ease with his actions.
At any rate, it makes no nevermind in the eyes of the law. The rule of felony murder which is upheld in Canada makes no distinction as to who is the actual murderer when a group participates in an organized crime.
To put it simply, a gang robs a bank during which one of the robbers shoots and kills a bank guard. The other members committing the crime, including the driver of the getaway car sitting outside the bank, are guilty of murder as well as the shooter and so in the case of Paul Rose, the argument of whether he was present or not is actually moot."The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the commission of a felony, the offender can be charged with murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies." Wikipedia
The other argument that Laporte was killed by accident, equally moot.
It's always romantic to view these murders as something other than what they are. To the families of those killed and injured by the likes of FLQ members, the differentiation is quite irrelevant.
To blowhards like those who defend Rose and other FLQ members, I wonder if their tune would change had a member of their own family been killed or crippled in the crossfire.
And so it's hard to accept that the murder of innocents in the name of a 'great cause' is acceptable and thankfully the vast majority of Quebecers are reviled by the characterization of Paul Rose as a hero.
How about Richard Bain's evil murder of an innocent bystander in his attempt at political assassination in favour of Anglo rights in Quebec?
Could anybody imagine a public figure, an esteemed writer or politician defending his actions as just some insignificant collateral damage in the heroic defense of Anglo rights?
Defend Paul Rose and you are justifying Richard Bain's action, it is that simple and there's no getting around it.
...After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
