Many are the adult male attention-seekers who have vented furiously in social media against the lad of 16 who disclosed the chat with Priit Toobal via Postimees. These guys shy not back from spouting the vileness of the world behind prison bars – towards a schoolboy.
As the crooked mind of the crooks go, it is the victims who are to blame – for daring to seek help and point to the unbecoming behaviour. It is a shame that such prison mentality is being poured forth by Centre Party youth rushing to defend their own. It is indescribably disgusting and deplorable to pressurise and pester a person who wanted to seek help and disclose the matter.
For bringing the story to the public, Postimees has one reason alone: we are having to do with a schoolboy, and our aim is to protect young people from such unbecoming and disturbing chats in the future.
Various interest groups are attempting to divert attention away from the point. In a manner absolutely unacceptable, numerous gay activists are claiming that the newspaper by publishing the story is persecuting Priit Toobal for his attraction to people of same sex. Neither was there a political motive to publishing the story. And we were far indeed from trying to affect the Supreme Court judgement proclaimed today regarding Priit Toobal, as some have also alleged. And how on earth could media be able to direct the judgement of Supreme Court?
The unethical in Mr Toobal’s behaviour isn’t as much in the bits of the sentences, but in the entirety of it all. A man 32 years of age went to a school that he knew, picked out students he liked the looks of, and probably inquired the names of the teachers. He contacted them without a word to the parents of teachers as to the intent and aim of contacting the lads. Ever so promptly, he led the chats to sexual preferences. Thereat, he kept taking it up after he learned the conversation was with a lad of just 16.
And was there any reason for Priit Toobal the politician to assume the pupils were adults? Reason dictates the opposite: the sports event was in a schoolhouse, between students. Knowing all that, the politician addressed the lads about sexual preferences and proposed to down some vodka together.
Should a teacher act like that, the teacher would be sacked. No headmaster nor teacher would let a man or a woman in the school doors if they knew the aim was to sexually seduce the students and invite them to drink vodka.
Those in a public office might indeed enjoy the advantage of looking extra trustworthy in eyes of teachers and students – and to abuse that is ugly.