Four of the city's highest-profile gay activists - the late Douglas Buckley-Couvrette, Roger LeClerc (now working to fight AIDS in Burkina Faso), Claudine Metcalfe (now a political attaché for the Quebec Liberal Party) and Michael Hendricks (who successfully sued Quebec and Canada in a historic court case for the right to marry his partner of 30 years) - held a dramatic sabre-rattling press conference to denounce Boisclair.

"The Committee on Violence is calling on all gays and lesbians, out or not, who work in all levels of government and its organizations, to demand recognition of gay and lesbian realities," their press release stated.

"Is Boisclair gay?" Buckley-Couvrette asked me afterwards with a gleam in his eye. "I can't be sure because I've never sucked his cock."

There was the implicit threat to out Boisclair if he didn't cough up the money, which he did within hours of the press conference.

Still, incensed that a closeted politician could make the lives of other gays and lesbians yet more difficult (Montreal, home to some 450,00 gays and lesbians, still averages two gaybashings per week), I decided to take it a step further.

So I interviewed Jean-Pierre Paquet, the former secretary-general of L'Association nationale des étudiants et étudiantes du Québec (ANEEQ) who was outed by the now-defunct Federation des associations étudiantes collégiales du Québec (FAECQ) during a nasty political fight in 1986.

Touted as unofficial breeding grounds for the major political parties, the rival student groups went all-out to enlist new recruits. "FAECQ told a member of the student population at CÉGEP Montmorency not to throw their support behind ANEEQ because I was gay," Paquet told me in 1997. "FAECQ wasn't a big organization at the time, with about 10 active [CÉGEP] members. If one member knew, I think the others would too."

Boisclair was a member and past president of FAECQ when Paquet was outed in 1986.

When Boisclair "officially" came out in the pages of Hour's sister publication, Voir, in 2000, he actually said, "For me, coming out is a false debate. If coming out of the closet means being at peace with your family, friends and colleagues, I did it a long time ago. Besides, I refuse to wear labels imposed on me by others. Liberty also means the freedom to make one's own choices. I will not allow anyone to define my identity or group I belong to. I associate with my friends, my family and Quebec. Not with the gay community. I have never chosen to live in the [gay] community. And I'm not about to begin today."

To his credit, Boisclair changed his tune years later. This past April he told L'actualité magazine, "I wouldn't say that today."

These days it isn't who Boisclair is fucking that's making headlines, but rather his past drug use.

A Sept. 21 Gazette editorial lectured Boisclair for having "the gall to be angry because he [was] asked by the media to answer questions about his cocaine use."

The editorial's condescending tone echoed a predilection on the part of the mainstream media to lasciviously report on the lives of gay public figures, or those perceived to be gay, when it suitably titillates straight readers.

For instance, Canadians were left wondering if federal Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre "Shampoo" Pettigrew had an affair with his chauffeur Bruno Labonte after newspapers reported Labonte accompanied Pettigrew on three trips to Europe and South America, even though Labonte's driving services were not required abroad.

No one questioned the cost to taxpayers of bringing Labonte overseas. People just wanted to know if he and Pettigrew were lovers.

Ottawa's press corps also went apeshit when federal Public Works Minister Scott Brison - who discussed being gay in this column back in 2003 - was rumoured to be marrying his partner.

"If he does wed," the Toronto Star reported breathlessly, "Brison will be the first federal politician to say 'I do' in a same-sex ceremony."

What we are dealing with here, then, are the politics of being gay.

In other words, if you're Ralph Klein and have a couple drinks, you're a (lovable) character. If you're René Lévesque, you can kill a man while drunk driving and get away with it (Lévesque never even saw the inside of a courtroom). But if you're gay, you're going to get raked over the coals.

Not surprisingly, Boisclair cowardly cancelled his scheduled interview with The Gazette's editorial board. But, on the eve of the Parti Québécois's Nov. 13-15 leadership convention, only by coming clean about his past drug use can Boisclair stop the hemorrhaging.

As for myself, would I vote for a gay, former coke-snorting politician? Frankly, I couldn't care less.

But voting for a man who takes no pride in being gay? I'd rather die.

Essential buttplug Don't miss Zeke's Get Proud Reading Series at Zeke's Gallery (3955 St-Laurent) featuring fab Montreal writers Miss Gina, former Hour copy editor John Woolfrey and Maisonneuve associate editor Matthew Fox, whose critically hailed collection of short stories Cities of Weather is also up for a Quebec Writers' Federation literary award on Nov. 23. Yours truly will handle MC duties at Zeke's beginning at 7:30 p.m. on Nov. 17. $5. See you there!

 
 

		Write your comment on this article!

It's not a matter of pride     Admitting one's own homosexuality in the political arena should not be a matter of pride, and shunning it should not be due to the desire to avoid "labels" either. It should simply be what you do because you're truly comfortable with yourself, so much so that you *don't* see that as a problem, homophobes be damned. And because the moment you start having secrets, you empower the very people you consider your opponents, and provide them with the leverage to make you do as they please, just to keep that information under wraps. This is no way to live, let alone build a career as a leader. Boisclair has lived to regret his statement about the gay community, and I'm sure he'll live to regret his two-faced statements about drug use as well. He should take his cue from Marc Boris St-Maurice (see "Prince of Pot" in this issue's news section), and learn that total transparency is always the best policy.
Charles Montpetit	{53 votes}	November 10th, 2005
I usually love this column ......     I am not sure why Mr.Burnett seems so proud of the fact that he outed Boisclair in an article. And from the article's account of the events it seems like it was a pretty spiteful action. Mr.Burnett has always been a big advocate for gay and lesbian rights and equality. Because of this, you would assume that Mr.Burnett supports people's freedom to choose whatever lifestyle they wish to lead...whether it is a straight lifestyle or a homosexual one. With this view he shows great tolerance and understanding. Yes -- great tolerance unless you are a closeted homosexual!! Boisclair was closeted for a reason - what right do you have to strip that away from him? Yes, part of the job of a journalist is to expose things going on in society -- but to out someone in an article because they take "no pride in being gay" ?? How is this relevant or justified? It seems as though you used your column to advance some sort of personal vendetta against the man. That is sad journalism. Unfortunately being homosexual is still not widely accepted (as the statistics on gay-bashing reveal) and coming out can be a difficult thing especially when you are in the public eye. To hold this against someone is just ludacris! Being homosexual is not a shameful thing, however society makes it a shameful thing. No matter how proud you are of your homosexuality, society's view on gays and lesbians will weigh in the back of your mind. Not everyone is prepared to deal with this -- and can you blame them?? I certainly do not. Burnett attacks another gay man because he doesn't live the gay life Burnett thinks he should? That is shameful!! How is that any better then a staight person attacking an homosexual? Both attacks are based on the fact that one doesn't like the other's lifestyle choices.
Kara Hughes	{22 votes}	November 10th, 2005
Voting For The Best Person     I find it unusual that gays are always supposed to support gays no matter what the situation. If there happens to be a gay politician like Boisclair he is automatically going to get the gay vote since he will satisfy all their goals once he is in power. This sounds preposterous. It is like men always voting for male candidates and francophones always voting for francophones during elections because only your own kind can be trusted. We should instead care more about the policies and principles of the candidates running for power. In any case gays have little to fear when you consider that a straight politician like prime minister Paul Martin risked excomunication from the Catholic Church so that his government could pass the same sex marriage bill. We should have more faith in the goodness of others.
Stephen Talko	{3 votes}	November 14th, 2005
Burnett guilty of his own hated stereotypes     I'm not a Pquiste, so I won't vote for or against Boisclair, but I woul like to know when Richard Burnett became the lord of Gaytown, deciding what is and what isn't gay pride, and dictating how and when someone should be and show pride if being gay. So someone doesn't want to live in the gay community, and doesn't run around screaming 'I'm a fag and poud of it!!' at the top of his lungs. Does that mean he's a self-hater, or that he feels no pride? That's like saying a Jew isn't really a Jew because he lives in a Chinese community, or a black isn't really black because he lives in a GReek neighborhood. This whole situation is a case of Richard Burnett being petty and vindictive, and threatening to out someone if they don't do what you want is blackmail. I'd rather vote for someone who simply prefers to live their own life the way they prefer than for someone who blackmails someone into funding their cause and then uses the media to try and make their life miserable when they don't kowtow to his demands.
Ben Kalman	{6 votes}	November 14th, 2005
Three Dollar Bull!     I don't like Parti Québécois leadership candidate André Boisclair, heck, who's kidding who here, I don't like the whole damn party and everything it stands for (except for the party's spiritual leader and founder, the late great René Lévesque for whom I've always had immense respect for even though I disagreed with his politics) so the fact that Boisclair is twisting in the wind is hardly a cause for me to lose any sleep over. Any issues I have with the PQ or any of its members is strictly political. Whenever I hear of a member of the PQ, or the PQ itself, getting into hot water a small part of me figures it's karmic justice for supporting a terrible backwards ideology based on never getting over France letting Quebec go to the Brits because it'd become a political liability to their crumbling power way back when. ~ There, now that I've vented, let me redirect some choice venom where it really belongs. Not gonna name any names, don't even have to really. Read the article and you'll figure out who I've got serious issues with. Taking pride in outing someone, eh? Well, that takes...something. I'm not sure it's guts because honestly outing someone because you can and you feel entitled to somehow strikes me as fundamentally wrong. It wasn't cool to stool pigeon on someone back in the HUAC and Senator Joseph McCarthy era and it isn't cool now. Sorry but feeling righteous pride by acting like a farm weasel? Conduct unbecoming is still conduct unbecoming no matter what the circumstances. Is André Boisclair gay? Do I bloody care? I'm more spooked by the fact that he's in the PQ. I care about the man's politics, record and character. Who he sleeps with? Who's business is that but his. ~ By the way, to whom it may concern none of what I've just said is any more defamatory, sexist, racist or rude than taking pride in outing someone for kicks. Think on that one for a while if you may.
Pedro Eggers	{3 votes}	November 13th, 2005
Broken promises     So let me get this right.. you have no problem outing Boisclair - using a broken promise as the reason. Sounds like blackmail to me- even if was for a good cause. Yet somehow - when that same man gets outed as a drug user - you get all offended and call everyone homophobes, for reporting on it. I don't think Boisclair being "picked on" for being a druggie, is because he's gay. I think it's mainly because he's a public figure - who's a druggie. And even if you're right - and the public is sensationalizing it just because he's gay - who was the person responsible for letting everyone know that?
Rob Postuma	{5 votes}	November 13th, 2005
A leader is born not made.     Boisclair problem seems to be that he is not sure who or what he is.At his age he should have clearly in his head what it is he is doing running for a government position. it is not the fact he is gay or white or French . It is more about the radical changes in his values that set people cautious about his place in government. He has started by confessing that he was on drugs x-number of years and now he sees the light. He has lived breaking the laws and now he is going to inforce them. How can we trust a man who swiftly changes and decides and even claims to have changed his personality and now wants us to believe that it is because he is gay that he is being rejected. You have to believe in what you preach other wise you can't be respected. A leader is born a leader he doesn't just decide to become one.The love to repesent your city , your province , your country must come before your choice to to sniff that first line of coke. We all have dreams and we all know that dreams can only come true through hard work and sacrifices to get to top and by sniffing drugs and getting a good break. We have to get pretty desperate to start putting people like Boisclair in power. This is not a person statement it is a political one.It would be like saying our best defense lawyer would be our best criminal if he chose to be a lawyer.
Maria Cecillia Silva	{3 votes}	November 12th, 2005
I'm fed up about hearing about Boisclair,Boisclair,Boisclair!!!     Is our news so boring and lacking in real news that the media is forever hounding us with Boisclair. Enough already. We didn't even know the man existed til he got on the leadership bandwagon and then bingo, is Boisclair gay and doesn't show pride in it; or is he a coke user who's abstaining as he wants to be premier of Quebec. Who the damn cares! I for one don't. If he used cocaine and is ashamed to say anything more about it; I say let him be; that has nothing to do with politics. Marois and the others are hoping to air more dirty laundry on him so they can win the leadership race but they are only making his name a common household word that people are now identifying with. This shows politics at its worse, Boisclair should fight back and find some antics of the past on Marois and make it publictically known. Afterall others can play that game. I'm not on the side of Boisclair nor Marois but when it is backstabbing an opponent because he is or isn't gay or used coke in the past, purely means nothing as how he is as a politician and what Quebec might or might not need if he were elected premier. I myself would never vote on him and it has nothing to do with his sexual orientation or his past records on dope; I would never vote for the PQ no matter who is there as I am against anybody who tries to break up Canada.
Maria Jankovics	{13 votes}	November 10th, 2005
Here we go again     I have been following Bugs Burnett's writings for the greater part of a decade: I love his frankness, his sardonic humour, and the way he educates his readers to the plight of marginalized people - gay or not - all over the globe. However, he and fellow scribe Matthew Hays suffer from "The Naming Game" which is what I call the act of outing celebrities large and insignificant whether those individuals want to be outed. Some are just people the game participants thing may be gay - and what galls me is that all of this is so presumptious and of course, without said individuals' knowledge. - - So, Richard, it is time to draw back from "The Naming Game" because, sadly, it reduces your column to "Is S/he or Isn't S/he"? histrionics and it alienates your loyal readers, specially if this happens time and time again. I cannot stand this type of thinking as much as I abhorre the GBLT Literature section at our bookstore chains. As you can see, I take issue with labelling and categorizing people because such behaviour merely encourages the Us versus Them mentality. In this day and age, we should be closing the gap and embrace each other - you are me and I am you. . . or will be in a New York minute depending on the circumstances. Finally, I believe that there is more to a person than just a confirmation of his or her sexual orientation. I want to hear their music, have their words engulf my senses, be mesmerized by their paintings and graffiti, I want to taste their delicious food, and watch their films whether or not they're gay and whether or not they espouse their personal or political beliefs. - - So, Richard, darling, I love your column, but if I hear you outing one more popular icon, I am going to hurl. Leave that job to the people concerned.
Sarine Makdessian	{5 votes}	November 10th, 2005
Proud to be himself     Instead of you mister Burnett I totally understand what Boisclair ment when he said he didnt want to be associated with the gay community. Let me explain, I just dont think someone can describe himself only by his or her sexual orientation. If I wanted a political career (we never know!) I wount want to be associated with the feminim community, only because I dont describe myself only as a gender. I am a woman, yes but a human first. When people want to argue with me they say "we know you are a feminist" I say no, only a human who's working for a better world for every humans. Boisclair is gay but a human first and we are so much more than just a sexual orientation or a gender: we are all different inside not only in our underwear!
Isabelle Gélinas	{4 votes}	November 10th, 2005

Write your comment! please follow these guidelines

Information requested in blue will remain confidential   [privacy policy]

First name :

Last name :

Your email :

Confirm your email :

Title of your comment (max. 150 characters)   Your comment (max. 2000 characters)  characters remaining       LIMIT PER PERSON : one comment per article per member. Thank you. Your comment will be read by our approval team and, if it is approved, will be posted on the website within 24 hours. It could also be published, along with your name, in the printed version of Hour magazine and on any of our partner websites. In order to present the highest quality of comments, Hour reserves the right to refuse certain submissions. Any plagiarism will entail the entire removal of the member’s profile. Hour is not responsible for the opinions expressed by the members.