Re-examination of the Act Amending the Act on Churches and Religious Communities (570 UA) Not Proclaimed by the President of the Republic
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
Date: 2025-09-17 17:25
Total Speeches: 115
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 1h 31m
AI Summaries: 115/115 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The Riigikogu debated the re-adoption of the Act on Amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act (570 UA), which the President of the Republic had refused to proclaim. The proceedings began with a presentation by Ando Kiviberg, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, who introduced the events of the committee's August 4 session. Hent-Raul Kalmo, the President's legal advisor, explained that the reason for the veto was the law's unclear definition of "doctrinal basis," which could infringe upon religious freedom, although the main objective of the law—severing dangerous administrative ties—was in line with the constitution. Erik Salumäe, advisor at the Ministry of the Interior, recommended adopting the law without changes, emphasizing that the threat to security might also lie in the doctrinal basis, and the situation must be assessed holistically. Andre Hanimägi, representing the Legal Committee, confirmed that their committee had also thoroughly discussed the issue of constitutionality, noting that the Ministry of the Interior's position that the law was not in conflict with the constitution received majority support.
During the debate, the opposition (Centre Party, EKRE) criticized the parliamentary majority for ignoring the President's veto, calling the process "ridiculous" and "legal malpractice" and predicting that the Supreme Court would support the President. The coalition parties (Reform Party, Estonia 200, Social Democrats, Isamaa) stressed that the law's goal was security-related—to reduce the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate, which supports Russian aggression. They affirmed that the law does not restrict religious freedom or the practice of faith. In the final vote, the Riigikogu decided to re-adopt the law in its unchanged form, meaning it will be sent back to the President of the Republic for proclamation or to the Supreme Court for constitutional review.
Decisions Made 5
The Constitutional Committee decided to support the re-adoption, without amendments, of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which the President of the Republic had returned to the Riigikogu (6 votes in favor, 1 against, 1 abstention).
The Constitutional Committee named its chairman, Ando Kiviberg, as the committee's representative.
The Legal Affairs Committee decided to support the re-adoption, in unamended form, of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which had been returned to the Riigikogu by the President of the Republic (8 votes in favor, 2 against).
The Legal Affairs Committee designated Andre Hanimäe as its representative.
The Riigikogu re-adopted, without amendment, the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act that had been returned by the President of the Republic (63 votes for, 15 against, 0 abstentions).
Most Active Speaker
Ando Kiviberg (Eesti 200, right) was highly active, presenting a report to the Constitutional Committee, answering questions, and participating in the discussions, where he emphasized the security objective of the law and highlighted examples of the Moscow Patriarchate’s activities supporting aggression.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Arvo Aller outlined the procedural order and the second item on the agenda, which concerns the re-discussion of Act No. 570 amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which the President of the Republic failed to promulgate. He also announced the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, Ando Kiviberg, as the rapporteur.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Arvo Aller opened the agenda item concerning the re-discussion of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which the President of the Republic had declined to promulgate. He thoroughly explained the procedure, which stipulates reports from the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, debates, and a final vote requiring an absolute majority of the membership, and subsequently gave the floor to the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, Ando Kiviberg.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
At an extraordinary session, the Constitutional Committee discussed the draft bill amending the Churches and Congregations Act and decided to re-adopt the bill, which had been returned to the Riigikogu in its unchanged form, and to appoint Chairman Ando Kiviberg as the committee's representative.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg provides an overview of the extraordinary session of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, which discussed the re-adoption of the amendment to the Churches and Congregations Act that the President of the Republic had refused to promulgate. The core of the debate centered on the doctrinal basis contained within the law and the assessment of the associated security risk. Although the President's legal advisor raised doubts regarding the vague definition of the doctrinal link, the committee decided to support the position of the Ministry of the Interior and voted in favor of re-adopting the Act in its unchanged form (6 in favor, 1 against, 1 abstention).
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Arvo Aller concluded his part with words of thanks and handed the floor over to Vladimir Arhipov to continue the round of questions.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The address includes thanks and an invitation to submit questions, directing them to Vladimir Arkhipov.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arkhipov expressed concern over whether the commission had addressed how the proposed legislation prevents religious messages from being mistakenly interpreted as a threat, and highlighted that the actual danger lies, rather, in the law itself, which could restrict people’s constitutional freedoms of religion and speech.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The speaker asks whether the commission has discussed how the law ensures that religious messages delivered during a prayer service are not erroneously interpreted as a threat, and whether such legislation infringes upon people's constitutional freedom of religion and expression.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The Commission has discussed these issues broadly and on multiple occasions, and while the specific example mentioned was not debated in precise detail, a clear position has been established that the new amendment does not restrict religious freedom or the right of believers to practice their customary religious rites and religious activities.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg explained that although the commission discussed the issues of the draft legislation extensively and repeatedly, not all details were addressed individually. However, a clear position emerged: the new amendment does not restrict religious freedom or the right of believers to practice their customary religious rites in any way.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits expresses both astonishment and admiration at the presenter's courage to submit for a third time a proposal that the president has already rejected twice, arguing that common sense should dictate avoiding such a risk of repeated failure, especially since the rhetoric remains unchanged.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller is calling Peeter Ernits.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits criticizes and ironizes your plan for the third attempt, noting that people who have run into a wall twice wouldn't do that, but simultaneously admires your courage to undertake it nonetheless.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg, while conveying the commission’s collective decision, expressed his personal surprise regarding the President of the Republic’s second rejection. This was because, following the initial rejection, efforts had been made to find common ground with the president’s legal advisor as well, but the new arguments arrived unexpectedly. Consequently, he felt that given the constantly shifting viewpoints, it would be more appropriate to finally let the Supreme Court decide the matter.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
After achieving initial consensus and establishing a shared understanding—a process that involved numerous meetings and consultations—the president ultimately returned with new arguments for rejecting the draft legislation. This came as a surprise to us, and perhaps it would be wiser to finally let the Supreme Court render the decision.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller invites Vadim Belobrovtsevi to speak.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev regrets that the amendments proposed by the Centre Party were not taken into account, which, according to the president's advisor, could have ensured the promulgation of the law. He also questions why the bill was sent back to the plenary session in an unchanged form, given that it is extremely likely the president will veto it for a third time as well.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev asks why the Centre Party's amendments were adopted in their original form, and whether those who supported sending the draft bill to the main hall without changes did not consider that something should be altered, given that it is highly probable the president will once again declare it unsuitable.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He said he had read the protocol thoroughly, raised a dissenting opinion, and stressed that the rest of the commission members understood that they needed to proceed exactly as he had described.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg confirmed that while a detailed reading of the protocol revealed one clear point of dissent, the majority of the remaining commission members present understood and supported the described future course of action.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller calls upon Kristo Enn Vaga.
Kristo Enn Vaga
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kristo Enn Vaga draws attention to the fact that the register of non-profit organizations eligible for income tax incentives includes 35 associations linked to the Moscow Patriarchate. He requests that the Constitutional Committee evaluate whether these religious associations should be removed from the register, taking into account the requirement that they operate in the public interest.
Kristo Enn Vaga
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kristo Enn Vaga asked the Constitutional Committee whether, following the adoption of the law, religious associations should be removed from the register, including 35 associations connected to the Moscow Patriarchate churches that engage in charitable work and operate in the public interest.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg explained that the issue in question has not been addressed because it is not included in the scope of the draft bill being discussed, but he confirmed that a member of the Riigikogu always has the opportunity to raise this topic for separate discussion.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg states that the issue has not been discussed, nor is it part of the substance of the draft bill, and therefore there is no reason to debate it. However, a member of the Riigikogu is free to raise it, and Parliament will then discuss it.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The presenter invites Signe Kivi.
Signe Kivi
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Signe Kivi quotes the President's letter and emphasizes that, when restrictions are imposed on the doctrine of a state religious association, the clarity of the restriction of fundamental rights must be especially important, given that the concept of danger in the law is defined too broadly and the implementer is required to give substance to general requirements. She then asks whether and how much the commission discussed this and what conclusion was reached.
Signe Kivi
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Signe Kivi, citing the president's letter, raises the issue of the vagueness of the law regulating the activities of religious associations, specifically regarding the broad definition of the concept of 'threat,' which necessitates subjective interpretation by the implementer. She inquires of the commission how they discussed this criticism and what conclusion they arrived at.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg confirmed that in resolving the issue, they relied on the most competent experts on religious matters in Estonian public law, such as the Legal Adviser to the President of the Republic and the Adviser of the Religious Affairs Department of the Ministry of the Interior, whose thorough positions and explanations provided clear objections to the arguments presented.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
To summarize, we listened to experts, including the detailed positions and clearly presented objections of the Legal Advisor to the President of the Republic and the Advisor of the Religious Affairs Department of the Ministry of the Interior, and we trusted the most competent experts in Estonian public law.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
This is merely Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller's address to Kalle Grünthal, saying, "Kalle Grünthal, please!"
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal recognizes the exceptionally high standard of the President's legal advisors but wants to know which of the commission members, who discussed the matter at length and in depth, possesses the legal education and background to measure up to that same level.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal expresses his thanks and asserts that the president's advisors, particularly those specializing in legal matters, operate at a very high standard. He then asks which members of the commission could possibly match the level of their legal expertise, requesting their names and credentials.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg strongly emphasizes that the primary duty of politicians in committees is to listen carefully to the best experts and specialists—including the president's legal counsel—to weigh their arguments, and subsequently, based on the knowledge acquired, to make deliberate and competent decisions.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The job of politicians in committees is to listen to experts, consider their arguments, and then make well-considered decisions.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The Vice-Chairman calls upon Varro Vooglaid to speak.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid stresses that freedom of religion is protected under Article 40 of the Constitution and cannot be restricted, even during a state of emergency, pursuant to Article 130. He then asks how the current draft bill permits the restriction of religious freedom during non-emergency periods, and what his stance on this matter is within the Constitutional Committee.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid draws the attention of the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee to an inconsistency in the draft bill, which provides for the restriction of religious freedom on security grounds, emphasizing that, according to Sections 40 and 130 of the Constitution, religious freedom is among those rights that may not be restricted even during a state of emergency or martial law, and requests clarification regarding the committee's discussion and the chairman's position on this matter.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg emphasizes that the draft bill does not affect religious freedom, and congregations and their members will be able to continue their current religious practices once the law comes into force, regardless of the disagreements and the opinions he has read regarding its limitations.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg answered the question, confirming that the Constitutional Committee had thoroughly considered the issue of religious freedom during the processing of the draft bill, but he resolutely stressed that, in their conviction, the draft bill in question does not restrict or affect religious freedom in any way. Consequently, congregations are able to continue their existing religious practices, though he conceded that this answer might not satisfy the questioner.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Arvo Aller confirmed that every member of the Riigikogu is allowed to ask the rapporteur one question, and the subsequent questioner is likewise limited to one question, with the next speaker being Andre Hanimägi, a member of the Legal Affairs Committee.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller concluded the question round for the previous speaker, emphasizing the one-question rule applicable to members of the Riigikogu, and then invited Andre Hanimäe, a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, to the podium as the second presenter.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
According to Andre Hanimägi, the Legal Affairs Committee discussed the draft Churches and Congregations Act. Based on the opinions of the President's legal advisor and the advisor from the Ministry of the Interior, the committee decided to re-adopt the draft bill without amendments and submit it to the Riigikogu, with 8 votes in favor and 2 against. Furthermore, he appointed himself as the representative of the lead committee.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi provides a summary of the Legal Affairs Committee meeting, where they discussed the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which had been returned by the President of the Republic. He highlighted the sharp confrontation between the arguments put forth by the President's legal advisor (who deemed the act unconstitutional, questioning its purposefulness and proportionality) and the representative of the Ministry of the Interior (who affirmed its constitutionality and necessity for regulating cross-border security threats). Despite these disagreements, the Legal Affairs Committee decided by a procedural vote (8 in favor, 2 against) to support the re-adoption of the bill without amendments.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The Vice-Chair thanks the assembly and announces that it is Question Time, and calls upon Vladimir Arhipov to speak.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller thanked the audience, announced the start of Question Time, and invited Vladimir Arhipov to ask the first question.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov is concerned about how the new law will treat messages shared during congregational prayer services, asking whether they will be monitored as potential threats, and demands clarification regarding the criteria for distinguishing between the expression of faith and a message that poses a genuine threat.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov asks whether the messages delivered at congregation prayer services are treated as a potential threat under the new law, and how to distinguish the expression of faith from an actual threat.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
At the meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee, we focused on assessing constitutionality and the issues raised by the President, and emphasized that the draft bill neither restricts religious freedom nor conflicts with Orthodox practice.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that the discussion within the Legal Affairs Committee focused solely on the constitutionality of the draft legislation and the issues raised by the president. He firmly rejected accusations that the bill aims to restrict religious freedom, asserting that it is not in conflict with the practice of the Orthodox faith.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller asks to give the floor to Kalle Grünthal.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal claims that the president's advisors are very strong in constitutional matters and that the Legal Affairs Committee lacks a constitutional expert besides Varro Vooglaid, noting that, according to the committee chairman, the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior's advisor was decisive, and he asks whether the participants are debating or are in agreement.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal criticized the Legal Affairs Committee for its lack of constitutional experts, claiming that the only true authority is Varro Vooglaid. He also pointed out that the opinion of an advisor from the Ministry of the Interior became the decisive factor in the decision-making process.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that although the president's advisor confirmed that the bill restricting religious freedom is constitutionally possible, there are differing opinions among legal experts (including Vooglaid) on this matter, which is why the final decision rests with the Riigikogu and, if necessary, the Supreme Court.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He noted that restricting religious freedom is legally permissible, and while various experts and advisors hold conflicting opinions, the final decision rests with the Riigikogu. Furthermore, even the issue of determining the most qualified experts ultimately leads to a ruling by the Supreme Court justices.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller Kalle Grünthal submitted a procedural question to the presiding officer.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Kalle Grünthal raised a procedural question with the presiding officer.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal expressed his dismay that the speaker failed to answer his very specific question regarding who, besides Varro Vooglaid, possesses sufficient legal and constitutional knowledge to qualify as an expert equal to him. He requested that the question be presented again, as the speaker was discussing something entirely unrelated.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal accuses the presenter of having hearing issues and asks them to repeat the question, because they failed to answer his specific query regarding who, besides Varro Vooglaid, possesses legal knowledge and an understanding of the constitution, and could qualify as an expert on par with Vooglaid.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Arvo Aller served as the moderator, assuring Kalle that the audio equipment was working properly, but he then moved the question round forward, asking the presenter to answer the next question, before handing the floor over to Peeter Ernits.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Arvo Aller thanks Kalle for repeating the question, confirms that the microphones and speakers are working, and states that the presenter will answer the next question and provide further clarification if necessary, before inviting Peeter Ernits to speak.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits, who did not participate in the preliminary stages of the bill himself, sharply criticizes the initial drafting of the legislation, arguing that the sections were intentionally left without substance, favoring instead ambiguity and broad room for delegation. This approach, he states, has resulted in the current unresolved issues, a point also highlighted by the President's legal advisor.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits is criticizing why the necessary sections were left lacking substance in the earlier stages of the bill, and why they failed to be specific, instead allowing ambiguity to remain, which, in his estimation, will probably lead to a poor outcome.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi explained that although he has not compared people's CVs, he is aware that individuals with legal backgrounds exist. Answering questions about the bill vetoed by the president, he stressed that even though the initial, overly vague concepts were made more concrete, the focus of the debate has shifted from the necessity of technical discretion to a broader constitutional issue concerning the framework of religious freedom and whether severing administrative ties is even possible.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Addressing the draft legislation, Hanimägi stressed that the debate centers on the degree of abstraction or the extent of discretionary power that should be permitted. While amendments have been introduced and the president has called for more precise definitions, the fundamental question remains broader: whether this kind of weighing of evidence is even feasible within the constitutional framework of religious freedom.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Arvo Aller calls upon Vadim Belobrovtsevi to speak.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev criticizes the draft bill, arguing that it infringes upon religious freedom (pointing to the President's repeated failures to proclaim it), and asks the committee whether they considered making substantive changes to, or perhaps outright discarding, this bill, which is turning "ridiculous."
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Belobrovtsev emphasizes that the proposed bill infringes upon religious freedom, and questions whether it should be substantially amended or simply abandoned.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi explains that although the Riigikogu (Parliament) and the President hold differing views regarding the chosen approach of the draft bill, both parties understand the importance of addressing security threats. Consequently, the Legal Affairs Committee determined that the best democratic solution is to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for further assessment and resolution.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The discussion confirmed that the Riigikogu and the President are not in a conflict of values. If the question arises whether a proposed bill is the right approach, it is sensible to submit it for assessment by Supreme Court experts, given that in a democratic state, both the Supreme Court and the Parliament perform their respective duties.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller gives thanks and concludes the round of questions, after which he unexpectedly addresses Varro Vooglaid and invites him to speak.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid, while emphasizing that he does not consider himself a leading authority on constitutional law, expressed disagreement with the President’s legal advisor, Hent-Raul Kalmo, on the question of whether security considerations permit the restriction of religious freedom. He argued that the fundamental essence of religious freedom is protection against interference by state power, which also includes the right of churches and monasteries to decide on their own ecclesiastical subordination.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid stressed that religious freedom primarily entails protection from interference by state power for religious associations, churches, and monasteries alike, along with the right to determine their own ecclesiastical lines of subordination. He voiced his disagreement with Hent-Raul Kalmo and expressed a desire to continue the debate.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi said that the discussion involved differing opinions, but the Legal Affairs Committee and the Constitutional Committee concluded that the draft bill could be adopted without amendments, and the next steps remain to be seen.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi confirmed that although the previous discussion resulted in significant disagreement—a situation that also reflects the current state of affairs—both the Legal Committee and the Constitutional Committee nevertheless decided to adopt the draft legislation in its unamended form.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller offers his thanks, announces that the questioning period has concluded, opens the debate, and invites Vadim Belobrovtsev to take the floor.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev sharply criticizes the draft bill, which the president has returned to the Riigikogu twice due to its unconstitutionality, calling the repeated proceedings a farce and a legal blunder. He blames the coalition for rejecting the Center Party's substantive amendments, which could have saved the legislation, and expresses his conviction that the Supreme Court, where the bill is now headed, will uphold the president's position. Finally, he calls on all members of parliament to vote against the bill, ensuring it is relegated to the dustbin of history.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev said that the draft bill is unconstitutional and constitutes a political and legal failure, adding that the Estonian Centre Party does not support its adoption in its current form, and called on everyone to vote against it and consign the bill to the dustbin of history.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller thanks [the previous speaker] and invites Vladimir Arhipov to speak.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov warns that the decision by the parliamentary majority to forcefully push through legislation, which the President of the Republic has rejected twice due to constitutional concerns, is a dangerous path that undermines the constitutional order and the foundations of the rule of law. He calls upon the Riigikogu to demonstrate responsibility and respect the President's signals to avoid damaging public trust.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov warned that Parliament must not ignore the constitutional concerns raised twice by the President regarding the Law on Churches and Religious Associations, because its adoption threatens the constitutional order, democracy, religious freedom, and the people's trust in the Riigikogu.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The address begins with a word of thanks, and next, the speaker Kalle Grünthal is invited.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal criticizes the Riigikogu committees for their lack of specialized knowledge, emphasizing that constitutional decisions are being made based on emotions and the opinions of government representatives, rather than resulting from the involvement of experts and substantive debate. Consequently, the current situation is poor, and decisions affecting all Estonian residents have been made shamefully carelessly.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal argues that the parliament’s biggest problem is the lack of professional competence within its committees and the tendency to make decisions based on emotion. Therefore, experts in the field of constitutional law and rights must be involved, otherwise these decisions will affect everyone living in Estonia.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Arvo Aller concluded his address with a brief word of thanks and handed the floor over to the next speaker, Peeter Ernits.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits expressed his embarrassment regarding the sloppiness of the legislative process, criticizing a draft bill that, according to the compelling arguments of the President's legal advisor, has overly broad implications (extending from religious associations to the press and political parties). He further reproaches the Riigikogu for leaving crucial sections undefined, thereby delegating its work and the responsibility for interpretation to officials at the Ministry of the Interior, even though the legislator itself ought to define those sections as comprehensively as possible.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
This speech includes words of thanks and a request that Peeter Ernits speak next.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits criticized the draft bill concerning churches, emphasizing that the Riigikogu must clearly define the provisions and must not delegate their interpretation to ministries. This is because the bill could have wider implications, affecting journalism, NGOs, and political parties as well.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The listener is offered three additional minutes during the speech.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Arvo Aller posed a short and specific question to find out if the audience wanted extra time.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits confined himself to a brief and emphatic agreement or affirmation.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller extended the speaking time, granting the participant an additional three minutes.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits warns that excessive delegation and overly vague draft legislation could lead to the authorities beginning to monitor people's thoughts and implementing preemptive measures. He therefore demands specific provisions and the abandonment of broad generalities.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits warns that the draft bill currently under discussion is dangerously vague and lacking in substance, thereby setting a precedent for the processing of the thoughts of organizations and even individuals—a clear reference to the recent 'thought police' idea. He stresses that the desire to control people's attitudes persists within the corridors of power, and consequently demands that the bill be made more specific. Failing that, he insists it should be tossed out due to its excessive generalization.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman offers his thanks and announces that there are still requests to speak, calling upon Madis Timpson to take the floor.
Madis Timpson
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Madis Timpson confirmed that ensuring state security is a core function and that the goal of the current bill is legitimate: to provide a value-based assessment and restrict intervening influence activities in Estonia’s internal affairs that are taking place under the guise of religious freedom. He emphasized that the legal amendments do not restrict religious freedom or ban any denomination, which is why the Reform Party faction supports adopting the bill in its unamended form, despite disputes over the proportionality of the measure.
Madis Timpson
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Madis Timpson confirmed that security is a core function of the state, and the bill is an abstract norm which, based on assessment, does not restrict religious freedom. The Reform Party faction supported the adoption of this bill without amendments.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The address begins with thanks, and Helir-Valdor Seeder is then invited to speak.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Seeder emphasizes that the congregations under Moscow's jurisdiction are part of Russia's geopolitical aggression, and the goal is to reduce the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate without restricting religious freedom. He calls on the Riigikogu to approve the bill, which has undergone thorough discussion, so that Estonian security and internal safety do not become hostage to the technical rule of law.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder confirms that the bill aimed at reducing the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate protects Estonian security, rather than infringing upon religious freedom. He emphasizes that following the presidential veto, the Riigikogu has made the necessary amendments and achieved widespread support (68 votes), which is why he hopes the President will promulgate the law. He considers appealing to the Supreme Court an unnecessary escalation of tensions, and criticizes the government and the President for the lack of prior agreement in protecting national security interests.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The Deputy Chair thanks [the previous speaker/group] and calls upon Ando Kiviberg.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg asserted that the motive behind the Eesti 200 initiative is the Russian invasion of Ukraine, coupled with the military support and complicity of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, noting that the Estonian church under the Moscow Patriarchate has failed to distance itself from these actions.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg, speaking on behalf of Eesti 200, emphasizes that the current legislative amendment is exclusively motivated by security concerns, as the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), which is subordinate to Moscow, is a weapon of the Kremlin's hybrid warfare used to support the aggression in Ukraine. He presents extensive evidence of the ROC's direct involvement in promoting military activities and preparing clergy for service in the combat zone. At the same time, he criticizes the local church operating in Estonia for failing to distance itself from or condemn the aggressive actions of its superior church, thus continuing to function as a tool of imperial colonial power.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Arvo Aller requests the addition of one more minute.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg argues that the bill is broader than just the question of severing ties with the Russian Orthodox Church, and against the backdrop of growing religious intolerance and aggressive religious currents, it is necessary to adopt this legislative amendment in its unchanged form, and he calls on his colleagues to support it.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg of the Eesti 200 faction emphasizes that although the bill under discussion concerns the severing of ties with the Russian Orthodox Church, it is a matter concerning broader security. This situation calls into question the absolute protection of religious freedom, especially considering the growing religious intolerance and the potential threat posed by aggressive religious movements originating from foreign states. Therefore, the faction requests that the amendment be adopted without changes.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman thanked the previous speaker and invited Andre Hanimägi to take the floor.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stressed that the purpose of the bill under consideration is exclusively security considerations, and its aim is to restrict influence activities that threaten the security of the Estonian state and are attempted to be concealed under the guise of religious freedom, rather than interfering with people's personal beliefs or conducting ideological screening. He acknowledged disagreements regarding the methods of adopting the law but deemed the bill's potential appeal to the Supreme Court a normal democratic process. Furthermore, he confirmed the Social Democrats' support for adopting the bill in its current form, emphasizing that religious freedom is not absolute.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that the draft bill is not intended to restrict belief or prohibit religions. Instead, its purpose is to prevent actions that threaten security under the guise of religious freedom, and in a democratic system, this matter might even reach the Supreme Court.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller thanked everyone and then gave the floor to Martin Helme, asking him to speak from his place.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Requests for speeches were made, and Martin Helme was asked to give an address on the spot.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme claims that the current government is the greatest threat to Estonia's security, and with this vote, Parliament is disgracing itself once again.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme harshly criticized the current government, labeling it the biggest security threat to the Estonian state, and arguing that parliament is once again shaming itself with the ongoing vote.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Arvo Aller concluded the discussions and submitted to the Riigikogu for a vote the re-adoption, without amendments, of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, a measure requiring an absolute majority of the Riigikogu's membership.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The Riigikogu voted in favor of adopting the law in its unchanged form with 63 votes, 15 votes against, and 0 abstentions, and the law has thus been readopted in its original form.