On the topic of ERM
Session: The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Information Hour
Date: 2025-10-15 15:01
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 21
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 12m
AI Summaries: 21/21 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
Member of Parliament Martin Helme submitted an inquiry to Culture Minister Heidy Purga concerning the event "ÖÖ25" held at the Estonian National Museum (ERM) on September 27. Helme described the performance by the artist "Valge Tüdruk" (White Girl) during the event as "disgusting filth," which included swearing, semi-naked writhing, imitation of sexual intercourse, orgasm, and rape, as well as mocking the audience by stamping their foreheads with the words "slut" and "venereal patient." Helme asked whether such activity constituted culture approved by the Ministry of Culture, which taxpayers should be funding, and what action the Minister intended to take regarding the state museum's director, Laura Kipper.
Minister Purga refused to give a substantive assessment of the ERM program, emphasizing that the Ministry of Culture does not interfere with the content activities of cultural institutions or dictate their programming. Purga stressed the importance of creative freedom and warned that public criticism should not devolve into political pressure or self-censorship. She expressed confidence in ERM head Laura Kipper and noted that the evening program in question was only a small part of a seminar that lasted all day. In a follow-up question, Varro Vooglaid criticized the minister's stance, arguing that she was washing her hands of the matter and giving free rein to processes that erode national cohesion and cultural norms. Purga maintained her position, stating that she trusts strong leaders and would not politically pressure the work of any cultural institution.
Decisions Made 1
No decisions were made
Most Active Speaker
Martin Helme (qLY8VCNUCx0) was the most active speaker, delivering sharp criticism regarding the operations and funding of the ERM (Estonian National Museum), which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture, and accusing the government of financing perversities with taxpayer money. His position is better.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Member of Parliament Martin Helme submitted an interpellation to Minister of Culture Heidy Purga concerning the activities and situation of the Estonian National Museum (ERM). The interpellation likely focuses on issues related to the ERM's management, financing, or more broadly, the museum's role and future vision within the Estonian cultural landscape. Helme's inquiry signals the opposition's attention to the ERM's operations and its desire to receive explanations and answers from the Minister of Culture regarding problems or development trends affecting the museum. This debate in the Riigikogu is crucial to ensure the transparent and effective functioning of the ERM as an institution of national memory.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar introduces the question posed by Riigikogu member Martin Helme to Minister of Culture Heidy Purga, which focuses on the topic of the Estonian National Museum (ERM).
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme has expressed outrage over the extremely vulgar and violent performance witnessed at the ÖÖ25 event, which was organized using taxpayer money at the Estonian National Museum (ERM). During the performance, the artist Valge Tüdruk imitated sexual acts and violence, and humiliated the audience by stamping their foreheads with the words "whore" and "sexually diseased." Helme demands a clear answer from the Minister of Culture as to whether such activity, which desecrates cultural heritage, is acceptable in the context of a state museum, and whether the ministry plans to take steps regarding its subordinate museum director.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The Riigikogu speech centered on scathing criticism regarding the content of the event "ÖÖ25," held at the Estonian National Museum (ERM) on September 27th. The speaker highlighted that although the event was advertised as a powerful cultural and entertainment program, the production titled "White Girl" contained extremely vulgar and repulsive content. It featured profanity, semi-naked writhing, and detailed imitation of sexual acts, including orgasm, ejaculation, and even rape. In addition to the production's vulgarity, the speaker emphasized the mocking and humiliation of the audience, during which people were stamped on the forehead with labels such as "whore" or "sexually diseased." The speaker then addressed the Minister of Culture directly, stressing that the ERM is a state museum, falls under the ministry’s jurisdiction, and receives approximately 9 million euros annually from taxpayers. The primary objective of the speech was to elicit a clear answer from the minister: Is this type of activity ministry-approved culture that the taxpayer should be funding? If the minister considers the incident to be the defilement of culture, the mockery of cultural heritage, and the humiliation of a state institution, an explanation was demanded regarding what steps would be taken concerning the museum director, who is the minister’s direct subordinate.
Kultuuriminister Heidy Purga
AI Summary
The speaker began by emphasizing that people hold very different understandings regarding experimentation and the role of the Estonian National Museum (ERM) in society, and that all approaches have the right to exist. He/She stressed that the Ministry of Culture does not interfere with the evaluation of the content activities or the drafting of the programs of cultural institutions. The Ministry's position is that museums are primarily places for the exchange of ideas and discussion, not objects of political control. The main concern of the speech was related to public criticism turning into pressure. The speaker expressed hope that the resulting criticism would not restrict creative freedom or lead to the emergence of self-censorship, which he/she has already begun to observe. This pressure threatens the museums' ability to be an open platform for various ideas and approaches. Finally, the speaker referred to the explanation provided by ERM Director Laura Kipper, according to which the controversial evening program was only a small part of a longer, full-day seminar, where daytime and nighttime activities were separated according to the format.
Kultuuriminister Heidy Purga
AI Summary
Minister of Culture Heidy Purga acknowledged the diverse public perceptions and emotions surrounding the museum event in question. However, she emphasized that her primary concern is preventing a situation where public criticism transforms into pressure that restricts creative freedom or encourages self-censorship. She affirmed that museums are venues for intellectual discourse, not political control, and confirmed that the Ministry of Culture does not evaluate the appropriateness of the content activities undertaken by cultural institutions, noting simultaneously that the controversial program constituted only a small part of a lengthy seminar.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The presented text is not a substantive parliamentary speech but rather a procedural announcement delivered by the Chairman of the Riigikogu session, introducing the next stage of the discussion. The announcement begins with a brief expression of gratitude, followed by an immediate transition to the question period. The central aim of the announcement is to grant the floor to Riigikogu member Martin Helme. He is being given the opportunity to pose a clarifying question, which signals that the preceding presentation or debate has concluded, and time is now open for clarifying and elaborating on details. In summary, this brief statement reflects the routine management of parliamentary proceedings, where the Presiding Officer regulates speaking time and ensures that members of parliament are able to exercise their right to ask questions and participate in the debate. The text itself does not contain any substantive political arguments or positions.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The speaker sharply criticizes the Ministry of Culture's inaction and attitude regarding a state-funded cultural event which, in his assessment, included profanity, the imitation of rape and masturbation, and the insulting of the audience by stamping their foreheads with the words "slut" and "sexually diseased." It is emphasized that this is a state museum subordinate to the Ministry, and such activity is unacceptable when funded by taxpayer money. The Ministry has adopted a stance of defending its institutional honor, justifying the incident as creative freedom and refusing to intervene. The speaker opposes this viewpoint, noting that a certain sense of decency and self-restraint, such as refraining from profanity, is an elementary part of culture and civilization, not censorship. This is not a personal matter, but a problem of national cultural policy. Funding perversions in the name of culture with taxpayer money poisons the entire public discourse, politics, and economy, and destroys cultural institutions. If the government fails to take steps to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, it is thereby giving its approval to these perversions, essentially stamping a negative mark on the forehead of the current government as well.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme criticizes the Ministry of Culture for the failure of national cultural policy, arguing that the ministry is defending the activities of a state museum—under the guise of "creative freedom"—activities that included obscenities, the imitation of sexual acts, and insulting the audience, all funded by taxpayer money. He stresses that this lack of decency and the state funding of such perversions poisons the entire public discourse, politics, and cultural institutions, and demands that the government cease supporting such phenomena.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar gave a brief and specific cue that the next speaker could begin their presentation, marking the official start of their allotted time.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme is categorically opposed to taxpayer money being used to finance activity that he deems inappropriate.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The text presented is not a substantive speech but a brief procedural interjection during a Riigikogu session. The speaker, likely the session chair or the previous speaker, used a short and polite phrase to hand the floor over to the Minister. Consequently, there are no political positions, topics, or arguments here that could be substantively summarized. The text consists of only two polite expressions: "Thank you!" and "Madam Minister, please!" The first expresses gratitude either to the previous speaker or the questioner, while the second invites the Minister to begin her address or reply. This was a purely formal transition within the agenda item, aimed at ensuring the smooth continuation of the session. Ultimately, the sole function of this brief phrase was to give the floor to the Minister, thereby marking the next stage of the discussion. In terms of substantive debate, the content of the speech remains zero, making it impossible to provide a summary of the topics addressed in parliament.
Kultuuriminister Heidy Purga
AI Summary
Culture Minister Heidy Purga, who did not attend the event in question, staunchly defended the professionalism of the Estonian National Museum (ERM) and its director, Laura Kipper. She stressed that museums must offer diverse—even uncomfortable—topics that resonate with the public, and affirmed that, as minister, she would not politically pressure cultural institutions, trusting their ability to understand their own audience.
Kultuuriminister Heidy Purga
AI Summary
The Culture Minister began their statement by explaining that since they had not personally attended the events in question (apparently an event held at the ERM), they did not feel it was appropriate to draw sweeping, comprehensive conclusions based on hearsay. They emphasized that personal opinion should be based on personal experience. The Minister firmly defended the reputation of the Estonian National Museum (ERM), calling it a very well-established institution, and praised museum director Laura Kipper for her professionalism and the successful program that has kept the museum well-attended over the past year. The Minister expressed delight that the ERM is drawing large crowds and hopes to see visitor numbers increase even further. They supported the museum’s decision to offer diverse experiences alongside heritage—including, for example, those related to nightlife culture—believing that the timing for such programs is always right. The Minister stressed that topics don't always need to be comfortable or sanitized; they must engage people. It must be possible to discuss uncomfortable subjects calmly, and while critics might perceive the program as an attack, many attendees did not see it that way. Finally, the Minister affirmed their unwavering principle: as long as they hold the position of Culture Minister, they will absolutely not politically pressure or interfere with the work of any museum or cultural institution. They trust the people who know their audience and understand which topics resonate with them.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The presented text is not an independent speech or a political address before the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament), but rather a short procedural announcement intended to give the floor to the next questioner. Therefore, it lacks any substantive arguments, political positions, or topics central to the debate that could be summarized. The text is limited solely to a polite acknowledgement ("Suur tänu!" / "Thank you very much!") and the announcement of the next step. The speaker announced that the right to ask the next supplementary question belongs to Riigikogu member Varro Vooglaid. This brief introduction is typical in the organization of parliamentary work, where the chair directs the debate and ensures that every member is given the opportunity to ask questions according to the established procedure. In summary, this short note contains no political content; it is merely a procedural instruction from the Chair, by which Varro Vooglaid was invited to the podium or microphone to present his supplementary question. Thus, this is purely technical and organizational information, not a substantive speech.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The speaker began by criticizing the Minister of Culture’s technique for responding, deeming the question of whether the critic was personally present at the scene to be irrelevant. Facts conveyed through the media are sufficient to raise critical questions. Although the Minister appeals to creative freedom and non-interference, the speaker emphasizes that the Minister has a duty to ensure that activities taking place in institutions subordinate to the Ministry of Culture are in accordance with both the law and the general cultural norms and customs that bind the nation. Washing one's hands of the matter and refusing to intervene gives free rein to processes that erode the national sense of belonging. For the speaker, this is the most alarming aspect of the entire incident (referring to the events at the Estonian National Museum). A similar example cited was the New Year's incident at the Drama Theatre, where large families and family life were denigrated on stage. If the state allows such culturally divisive processes to occur using taxpayer money, many people feel alienated from society. The Minister must feel a sense of responsibility and stand against allowing such destructive processes to gain freedom.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid is criticizing the Minister of Culture, who is appealing to creative freedom and refusing to intervene in controversial events taking place in state cultural institutions (such as the Estonian National Museum [ERM] and the Drama Theatre). He emphasizes that the minister’s duty is to ensure that these activities align with the cultural norms and traditions that bind the nation together. This kind of washing one's hands of the matter and shirking responsibility gives free rein to processes that, using taxpayer money, erode the national sense of belonging and make people feel as though they no longer belong to this society.
Kultuuriminister Heidy Purga
AI Summary
Minister of Culture Heidy Purga reaffirms her unwavering confidence in the strong and competent leaders of institutions under the Ministry of Culture’s purview, particularly ERM, such as Laura Kipper. She emphasizes that the ministry has no reason to intervene in their work, adding that the recent incident concerning the night program should not be overly emphasized, as the institution was acting within its rights.
Kultuuriminister Heidy Purga
AI Summary
The speaker expresses the firm belief that the state must trust strong leaders, a principle that applies particularly to the heads of foundations operating under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture. He emphasizes that these leaders—citing Laura Kipper as an example—are highly competent experts and professionals with long-term experience (over 20 years) in the museum sector. Given that these leaders have a council, advisors, and strong teams, for instance, at the ERM (Estonian National Museum), the Ministry’s trust in their work is completely unwavering. Consequently, the speaker sees no reason why the Ministry of Culture should interfere with the work of the Estonian National Museum. While the ability to discuss difficult topics is a characteristic of a strong society, this specific incident should not be blown out of proportion. Referring to a specific segment of the program that took place at night, the speaker believes that the institution was fully within its rights to conduct that program there.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked the audience and announced that the consideration of the first item on today's agenda had been concluded.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
This brief statement during the Riigikogu session was purely procedural, and its purpose was to mark the conclusion of the discussion on the agenda item. The speaker, likely the Presiding Officer of the session, announced that the first issue had been exhausted and that its debate would be terminated. This was a formal announcement confirming that the parliament’s work plan would move forward to the next topic, thereby ensuring the smooth and organized continuation of the session. The address itself contained no substantive arguments, political viewpoints, or introductions of draft legislation. Consequently, the speech lacks specific positions that could be separately highlighted or analyzed. Instead, it served as a technical and organizational interim summary, confirming that the time allocated for discussion under the given agenda item had ended or that the matter had been sufficiently addressed. In conclusion, it was a short and courteous closing remark, thanking the participants and confirming that the session would proceed with the discussion of the next item on the agenda. This fulfilled the procedural requirements of the Riigikogu and guaranteed the smooth progression of the session, clearly marking the end of one stage and the commencement of the next.