Like all big press conferences, this one was a few minutes late getting under way. Due to the usual delays, of course.
But by 1:10 p.m., a scrum larger than most which greet prime ministers had been assembled on the main floor of Buddies in Bad Times Theatre. The press awaited. And Gerald Hannon didn't disappoint. He descended the staircase, a la Norma Desmond, slowing slightly to nod to supporters to the left and right. He was ready for his close-up.
And that is precisely what followed. Gerald Hannon up-close and personal.
There were moments this weekend past, I must confess, when I questioned the rationale for Mr. Hannon's openness, especially in his astonishing over-the-top gratuitous admission to prostitution. (I also must confess I had been told about it some days ago but dismissed it as impossible to prove.) But it is, after all, wicked to mock the afflicted. And if Gerald Hannon was too feeble-minded to properly defend himself, then perhaps it was time to lay off.
That was then, this is now, and after yesterday's performance it is abundantly clear that not only is Gerald Hannon capable of intellectualizing these issues ad nauseum, ad infinitum, he is relishing the chance to do so.
What else, then, to make of yesterday's spectacle, replete with unabashed confessions and avowals to continue offensive behavior at the first available opportunity? It is difficult to claim to be the victim of a smear campaign when one has been spreading it oneself.
Hannon said yesterday he has been tainted by "reprehensible" journalism, reportage which failed to include statements about his good qualities. He must have missed descriptions of his "award-winning" stories, "obvious writing talents" and "charismatic personality."
He was also completely and utterly wrong to leave the deliberate impression that the attacks against his judgment may have been fuelled by homophobia. There is not a scintilla of evidence to prove this, he knows that, but is also smart enough to know that if anyone, for even a second, believed this to be the case, he would have a flood of support.
At the end of the day, Hannon and I remained as far apart as always. He continues to claim the topic of "intergenerational sex" has only arisen in certain circumstances at the school and I continue to claim that even the most fleeting discussion of it is inappropriate in a journalism class.
And, as usual, he didn't skip an opportunity to expand on those views. He explained he has had recent contact with a man who, as a nine-year-old boy, had sex with a 54-year-old adult and found it a positive experience. When a journalist ventured that, as the mother of a nine-year-old boy, she couldn't see anything of merit in the experience, Hannon suggested that perhaps she shouldn't be speaking for her own child.
And that, perhaps, remains at the core of this issue. You can cloak it in academic freedom and freedom of expression arguments all you want, but responsible adults will continue to express revulsion at suggestions that adult-child sex, pedophilia or, legally speaking, sexual assault is ever beneficial.
Hannon adopted the demeanor of a wounded virgin yesterday, an innocent under vicious attack for no apparent reason. No one at this newspaper has ever advocated firing or suspending him. He should never have been hired in the first place, given his views on pedophilia and his moonlighting. That is Ryerson's challenge - how to balance Hannon's rights against the reputation of the institution.
The school is in deeper trouble than ever, judging by the turnout and tone of yesterday's presser. They dramatically upped the ante over the weekend only to find themselves matched and raised by a cool opponent. It's time to see him and call.
The administration is best out of this game with a firm resolution sooner rather than later. Silence doesn't assist on stories like these; in fact, the longer it goes, the worse it gets. They are running the risk now of creating a martyr.