On the topic of ERM
Session: The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Information Hour
Date: 2025-10-15 15:01
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 11
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 12m
AI Summaries: 11/11 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The report addresses the response of Minister of Culture Heidy Purga to the interpellation by Martin Helme (EKRE) concerning the scandalous event "ÖÖ25" held at the Estonian National Museum (ERM). Martin Helme highlighted that an artist named "Valge Tüdruk" (White Girl) performed on the stage of the state museum, which is funded by taxpayers, whose performance included extreme vulgarity, semi-naked writhing, imitation of rape, orgasm, and ejaculation, as well as the humiliation of the audience (e.g., stamping foreheads with the words "whore" and "sexually diseased"). Helme asked the minister whether such activity constitutes culture, whether the ministry approves of it, and whether the taxpayer should fund it, while also demanding an action plan regarding the museum's management.
Minister Purga replied that she herself was not present at the event and therefore could not give a personal assessment. She emphasized that the Ministry of Culture does not assess the suitability of the content activities of cultural institutions nor interfere with the compilation of their programs. Purga appealed to creative freedom and warned against political pressure that could lead to self-censorship. She expressed complete confidence in ERM Director Laura Kipper, noting that the scandalous program was only a small part of the day-long event. Both Helme and Varro Vooglaid criticized the minister's "washing her hands" attitude, arguing that allowing state-funded vulgarity destroys national cohesion and poisons society. The minister stood by her position, confirming that she trusts strong leaders and will not politically pressure the work of cultural institutions, considering ERM's activities, including the handling of uncomfortable topics, to be their right.
Decisions Made 1
No decisions were made
Most Active Speaker
Martin Helme was the most active speaker, raising critical questions and seeking clarifications concerning the Ministry of Culture's inaction and the national cultural policy. His political stance is right-wing.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.