Reconsideration of the Act Amending the Act on Churches and Religious Communities (570 UA), Not Proclaimed by the President of the Republic
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
Date: 2025-05-14 18:12
Total Speeches: 80
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 1h 41m
AI Summaries: 80/80 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The fourth agenda item concerned the bill amending the Law on Churches and Religious Congregations [re-examination], which had been returned to the Riigikogu by the President. The presiding officers explained the procedure: first, a presentation by the representative of the Constitutional Committee (up to 20 minutes), followed by a presentation by the representative of the Legal Committee (up to 20 minutes). A member of the Riigikogu could pose one question to either presenter. Following that, deliberations would take place, in which all members of the Riigikogu, as well as representatives of committees and factions, could participate; the essential question being the unreasonableness of the restrictions, and the discussion must remain focused on disclosing the reasons. Finally, a vote would take place, the substance of which is the decision to re-adopt the bill in its original form. Such a vote is complex: those who believe that the Riigikogu has properly processed the bill and that amendments are not necessary should vote in favour; otherwise, if milder forms or substantive changes are required, one must vote against. Following the initial explanation, members of the Constitutional and Legal Committees continued, and a final vote was then carried out.
Decisions Made 1
The Riigikogu did not adopt the re-adoption in its original form and decided to amend or discuss the bill together with proposed amendments. Furthermore, Ando Kiviberg (constitutional affairs committee) was designated as the leading committee, and it was decided that the legal affairs committee will take the next steps, organizing the further work of the procedure.
Most Active Speaker
The most active speaker at the session was TpUtVYyRrvw, who stands out as the chairman of the constitutional committee and the leading representative at the session; his role was leading and coordinating (assuming the "other" position, not left or right).
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi explained the procedure for the fourth item on the agenda, noting that the discussions would focus on the reasons for the President's refusal to promulgate the law, rather than addressing the substance of the draft bill itself. A vote would then determine whether to adopt the law in its current, unchanged form or to send it forward with proposed amendments.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The Riigikogu Constitutional Committee decided not to re-adopt the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act in the unchanged form vetoed by the President, and appointed Ando Kiviberg as the committee's leading representative.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi thanked [the speaker] for the precise and rational presentation and invited Peeter Ernits to ask questions.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits addresses the chairman and the respected speaker, asking how Abbess Filareta and her nuns pose a threat to Estonia’s security, and whether this matter has been discussed.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg said that the topic was not discussed at that session, and he does not have to disclose his personal position on the matter at this time.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invited Rain Epler to speak.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler pointed out that although the presentation was rational, it seemed to him that the discussion was limited to the format—whether to approve it unchanged or not—because the decision is closely tied to the substantive discussion.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg stated that potential amendments were discussed, and the positions of both the representative from the President’s Office and the initiating Ministry of the Interior were heard. Prior to the meeting, consultations were held with the Legal Affairs Committee and the Constitutional Committee, and the Riigikogu will be able to jointly find a suitable solution as it continues its work.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The address is an expression of gratitude and is directed to Maria Jufereva-Skuratovski with a request.
Maria Jufereva-Skuratovski
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Maria Jufereva-Skuratovski assured Rain Epler that the debate on the draft legislation was highly substantive, and that "we actually delved very deeply into it," before asking which committee would handle the matter going forward—the Constitutional Committee, the Legal Affairs Committee, or perhaps both together.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He said that the lead committee for the bill is the Legal Affairs Committee, and if the plenary decides to proceed with amendments, the matter will fall to the Legal Affairs Committee.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invited Vadim Belobrovtsev to the stage.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He requested a slightly more detailed explanation regarding the idea put forward by the presidential advisor, according to which, had the Center Party's amendment proposal been approved and adopted, the situation might have been different, and the president might have proclaimed the law.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He/She asks for clarification on the topic of discussion, confirms that the precise wording of the amendment has been outlined, and wishes to gain a better understanding of the exact contents of the question.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He doubts whether he actually quoted the president's advisor's opinion correctly, and reminds himself that memory can be deceiving.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He said that he read that quote out from the minutes, and that the amendment had been submitted by the Centre Party in the Legal Affairs Committee, not the Constitutional Committee.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invites Varro Vooglaid to speak.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vooglaid noted that throughout the entire session, the deputies who voted in favor of adopting the law argued against the President's Office, and it was decided by consensus not to adopt the bill in its unamended form. He then asks why it couldn't be discussed again and why the Supreme Court shouldn't be given the opportunity to assess the constitutionality of the law.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
I am speaking personally, and I am prepared to take this step because the President's office has demonstrated a clear vision of the version they would accept, suggesting a potential agreement; however, the other commission members must now voice their opinions.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme said that the faction voted against the bill due to its conflict with the Constitution, noting that it affects all churches, religious associations, and NGOs. Following the president's objection and subsequent return of the bill, he asked what was actually planned to be changed if everything was supposedly in order.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invites Martin Helme to take the floor.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg said that the Constitutional Committee did not decide exactly what to change; proposals were submitted, including the president's own, but they were not discussed in that form, and if the law is open to multiple interpretations or contradicts the constitution, and it can be made more precise and unambiguously clear, he is ready to stand up for it.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invited Mart Helme to speak.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Mart Helme posed a theoretical question: if the new Pope were to express support for Russia's aggression, and the coalition adopted that law in its unamended form, should the Catholic Church then be banned or forcibly liquidated?
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanked the audience.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Mart Helme stresses that punishment must exist, but the law must not be such an arbitrarily flexible law that allows it to be used against everyone.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi expressed his thanks.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Mart Helme asks whether the listeners understood his point, if they will refute or confirm it, and what their overall position is.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg stated that the popes hold different views: the previous pope had made statements supporting Russia. However, the crucial point is whether one supports the aggressor's crime and issues directives to members of the denomination, and we will remain divided on this matter, allowing the experts to conduct the groundwork before deciding later what stance to adopt.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi expresses his thanks and invites the representative of the leading committee—in this case, Andre Hanimägi, a member of the Legal Affairs Committee—to the Parliament's rostrum to speak.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The Commission discussed constitutionality, the restriction of religious freedom, and the clarification of terms, found that the objective of the act is legally justified and that the text must be better worded, and consequently decided to submit the draft bill to the plenary session on May 14th and not to readopt, in its unchanged form, the draft amendment to the Churches and Congregations Act that had been sent to the Riigikogu.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi thanked and praised the speaker for being very knowledgeable, clear, and specific, and then invited Martin Helme to ask questions.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme accuses his opponents of presenting the situation in direct contradiction to the president’s statement. He emphasizes that from a security standpoint, the Estonian state already possesses all the necessary means and resources, and therefore a new law is unnecessary and must not be created, and he asks why the law is being opened up for amendments and what specific changes are intended.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi said that the president did not dispute the law's goal—security—and that if the terms are ambiguous, they will be reviewed and, if necessary, modified. He added that if the Riigikogu determines that the president's observations need to be addressed, they will be given the opportunity to do so.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invited Vadim Belobrovtsev to speak.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Belobrovtsev posed two questions: what the precise aim of the law is, and whether its adoption is even necessary if the same regulation is already covered in other legislation.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi pointed out two areas of concern: the restriction of religious freedom and the question of whether the objectives could be achieved through other means, including the Centre Party’s amendment proposal, which stipulates that one must not carry out orders that are clearly dangerous to security. He further added that if the law is adopted, it would grant the Minister of the Interior the power to decide in court whether a specific religious association and its connection with a foreign individual poses a threat to security. This demonstrates that security is not black and white, but encompasses long-term influence activities and a broader range of issues.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Unfortunately, the speech text is unavailable, so it is not possible to provide a summary.
Maria Jufereva-Skuratovski
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He asks whether, if Parliament decides to amend the law, the Legal Affairs Committee already has a plan for the procedure, and whether they will meet again with the church’s representatives and advocates, or if they can devise the amendments themselves.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Thank you for the question. In reality, we lack both the necessary information and a plan. Furthermore, the news reported publicly regarding the new draft bill does not reflect the actual discussion, which seems to have originated from Mr. Vooglaid’s specific phrasing. The objective of this phrasing was to remove problematic and overly general terms, such as "to be guided by" and "notable person." However, the commission must ultimately discuss whether to re-engage experts, a step the commission chairman will take if required.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi said that the debate was very substantive and productive, interjecting with a question for the moderator before inviting Vadim Belobrovtsev and suggesting that it could still get even better.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Belobrovtsev emphasized that he was not abusing the opportunity, explaining that he had asked a specific question regarding the bill’s objective, but received no answer, and therefore suggested asking the rapporteur again.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi emphasized that only one question may be posed within a minute. Although the presenter has attempted to respond to all inquiries, he retains the right to select which ones he answers, and receiving the floor again separately just to provide an answer is not permitted.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The speaker raises a genuine question about how Abbess Filareta and her group of 170 nuns, aged 20 to 87, pose a threat to Estonia's security and constitutional order.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi asserted that the law is not intended to combat nuns, but rather to prevent foreign influence operations targeting churches and religious communities, and to protect public order and security.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi confirmed that everything had been answered properly and was in order, and then called upon Vladimir Arhipov.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov asked whether the commission had only discussed the violation or non-violation of constitutional rights and freedoms, and whether the emotional aspect had also been taken into account, such as the restriction of religious freedom for the 150,000-member Orthodox community, and the fact that this view is shared by a large part of the rest of the world.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stressed that the draft bill under discussion is not an attack on religious freedom or a restriction related to anyone's religious practice; rather, it pertains to an administrative link, and no security agency tells you which god you may believe in or serve.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The address begins with a request for Varro Vooglaid to come up on stage.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid highlighted two important points that were overlooked in the review: first, that the representative of the President’s Chancellery referred to Section 130 of the Constitution concerning the unrestricted nature of religious freedom even during an emergency, and that practical conclusions should be drawn from this; second, that the President’s criticism is a matter of principle, and as long as the requirement to sever canonical ties persists, the unconstitutionality will also remain, which he requests to be addressed more broadly in the protocol.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi said that the core question is whether it is possible to terminate the canonical ties, and whether this is a matter of principle that restricts religious freedom, taking into account the needs of security and public order, and that ultimately the chamber will be able to decide how to proceed.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is a brief invitation for Rain Epler to come up to the stage.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler notes that although the President initially argued that the law lacked constitutionality and that the restrictions imposed on religious freedom and freedom of association were disproportionate, it later became clear that he had monitored the Riigikogu and read the explanatory memorandum, which defines the law’s main objective. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that he agrees with it.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
In summary, Andre Hanimägi stated that although the president has no fundamental opposition to the goal of ensuring security and public order, there is an ongoing discussion about whether this same objective can be achieved using existing laws or if additional controls are necessary. Furthermore, the final question regarding the scope of the restriction remains with the Riigikogu (Parliament) to decide whether changes to the law are needed.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanked and said that there are no more questions, he will open the negotiations, and they will be started by his good colleague Lauri Läänemets, who asked for extra time; there are eight minutes left.
Lauri Läänemets
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Läänemets claims that the aim of the law is to protect Estonia's security and to end the Kremlin-linked legal subordination, not to restrict freedom of religion, and to prevent Russia's influence in Estonia's religious life, so that Orthodox Christians can peacefully devote themselves to their faith.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The vice-chairman Arvo Aller thanked, asked Martin Helme to speak, and asked for three more minutes.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme said that this law is unconstitutional and endangers everyone's freedoms and the rights of civil society organizations, and that criticism is silenced by Putin's rhetoric, warning that such a legal instrument will lead Estonia toward a totalitarian order — the law must be changed, because there are other lawful means to defend democracy.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The vice-chairman thanked and then invited Vadim Belobrovtsev to the podium.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev claims that the Centre Party's draft bill was aimed only at the Estonian Orthodox Church, that it is in violation of the Constitution, and that the president has said that it does not need to be promulgated, because everything necessary already exists in other laws.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The deputy speaker Arvo Aller asks to grant three more minutes.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev said that the draft is unconstitutional, and the president has stated it very clearly, so it should be swept under the rug or thrown into the trash, because the existing laws regulate the situation and the original aim cannot come into force together with it.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Thank you; next up is Vladimir Arhipov, and the speaker asked for three more minutes.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov emphasizes that the independence of the Estonian Church and the continuation of freedom of religion without restriction are important, and the separation of state and church must be preserved, because the rule of law must not incite opposition to religious culture or recall past repressions, but should promote peace and cooperation with Christian values.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Thank you, and next up is Peeter Ernits.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits said in the Riigikogu that he voted against the Church Act, because the timing was wrong, and in an international context, especially in relations with the United States and neighboring countries, well-considered decisions are needed, not hurried steps.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The speech contains only one question: "Would you like some extra time?"
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
They answer affirmatively and ask for something.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The vice-chairman Arvo Aller requests three minutes.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits emphasizes that we need security guarantees, calls on us to follow Finland's example in building shelters and in quiet rearmament, and in avoiding provocations from the neighbor, and condemns keeping the draft unchanged, while at the same time stressing that the church and religious people must not be meddled with.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Arvo Aller thanks and invites Lauri Laats on stage next, and then Varro Vooglaid, during which time the hall responds affirmatively and something flickers.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid says that Parliament is in serious shame, because 60 MPs deliberately voted for an unconstitutional bill that violates freedom of religion and the principles of church self-government, and this demonstrates glibness and a lack of political culture in the exercise of state power.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The vice-chairman Arvo Aller said that three more minutes would be given.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid emphasizes that the president did not back the lie, and the draft is cosmetic and does not remove the unconstitutionality, and the state must not demand from any religious association the severing of canonical ties, because freedom of religion is protected even during a state of emergency; therefore the draft must be amended so that it truly eliminates the unconstitutionality, otherwise it is a farce.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The vice-chair thanks and announces that the next speaker will be Helir-Valdor Seeder.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder states that the draft bill is in accordance with the Constitution and is very necessary from Estonia's security standpoint, and recommends continuing its processing and refining its wording through the Parliament's legal and constitutional committees and oversight institutions (the Supreme Court, the Chancellor of Justice).
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The speech emphasizes the need to get three more minutes.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder said that, from the standpoint of Estonia's state security, this law must be passed, and that it is not intended against just one specific organization, but more broadly against all organizations, including religious associations and civic associations, that threaten security, and it may be used only under such a condition.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Arvo Aller announced the termination of the negotiations and called on the Riigikogu to vote on the unamended re-adoption of the law amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which has been returned by the president.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The Riigikogu voted in favour of adopting the law in its unamended form with 0 members in favour, 85 against and 0 abstentions; therefore the law in its unamended form was not adopted; the deadline for submitting amendments to the Law on Churches and Congregations is May 28 this year at 17:15, and today's fourth item on the agenda has been completed.