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: 163
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 1h 31m
AI Summaries: 163/163 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The Riigikogu debated the re-adoption of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act (570 UA), which the President of the Republic had declined to promulgate. The proceedings began with a report by Ando Kiviberg, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, followed by a report from Andre Hanimägi, representative of the Legal Affairs Committee. Both committees had discussed the grounds for the presidential veto, which mainly concerned the ambiguity of the Act and the overly broad definition of the concept of "threat," especially regarding the doctrinal basis of religious associations. The committees heard the positions of both Hent-Raul Kalmo, the President's legal counsel, and Erik Salumäe, adviser to the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry of the Interior and the majority of the committees found that the Act is in compliance with the Constitution and that its purpose is to sever dangerous administrative ties on security grounds, not to restrict religious freedom. The opposition (Centre Party, EKRE) criticized the parliament's decision to send the Act back in its unamended form, considering it a legal defect and a disregard for the President's competence. The coalition emphasized the necessity of the Act in ensuring national security and considered referring the matter to the Supreme Court a normal democratic process. In the final vote, the Act was re-adopted in its unamended form with 63 votes in favor.
Decisions Made 1
The Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which had been returned to the Riigikogu by the President of the Republic, was readopted in its unchanged form (63 in favor, 15 against, 0 abstentions).
Most Active Speaker
Ando Kiviberg (Eesti 200) was the most active speaker, presenting the views of the Constitutional Committee and thoroughly answering questions, defending the adoption of the law based on security considerations. (Position: right/coalition)
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
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller outlined the procedure for the re-discussion of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which the President of the Republic had declined to promulgate, explaining that the debate on the bill would include presentations by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, debates, and a final vote, after which he invited Ando Kiviberg, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, to serve as the rapporteur.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Arvo Aller opened the re-discussion of Act 570, the amendment to the Churches and Congregations Act, which the President of the Republic had refused to promulgate. He outlined the procedural order, which consisted of reports from the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, subsequent debates, and a final vote requiring a majority of the membership, and then invited Ando Kiviberg, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, to the rostrum.
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.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Arvo Aller thoroughly explained the procedure for the re-discussion of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which the President of the Republic had declined to promulgate. This procedure stipulates presentations from the Constitutional and Legal Committees, negotiations, and a final vote requiring a majority of the Riigikogu membership. Following this explanation, he invited Ando Kiviberg, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, to the podium.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg provides an overview of the extraordinary session of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, where they discussed the re-adoption of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which the President of the Republic had refused to promulgate. The main dispute centered on the concept of "doctrinal basis" contained within the Act, which the President's legal advisor deemed too vague. Meanwhile, the Ministry of the Interior recommended re-adopting the Act without amendments, emphasizing its necessity for mitigating security threats. The committee ultimately decided by a majority vote (6 in favor) to support the re-adoption of the Act in its original form.
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.
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
Vladimir Arhipov expressed concern, asking the commission how the new law ensures that religious messages shared during worship services are not mistakenly interpreted as a threat, and stressed that the real danger might actually lie in restricting the constitutional freedoms of religion and speech.
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
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 draft bill repeatedly and at length, the firm consensus was that the new amendment does not restrict religious freedom or the right of believers to practice their customary religious rites in any way, even if specific examples of such a high degree of precision were not addressed separately.
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.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller is calling Peeter Ernits.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits, using common sense, finds it baffling and ironically admires the rapporteur's audacity in making a third attempt with the same proposal that the president has already failed to promulgate twice, asking whether the commission failed to discuss that, without changing the rhetoric, this amounts to yet another instance of banging one's head against a brick wall.
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.
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
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.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg presented the commission's collective decision but added his personal view: since the President of the Republic rejected the bill for a second time, citing new arguments—which came as a surprise despite prior cooperation with the President's legal counsel aimed at finding common ground—it is likely more appropriate to let the Supreme Court resolve the matter, given that arguments can evolve over time.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg explained that although the committee struggled to find common ground after the president's first veto and even discussed solutions with the president's legal advisor, the second rejection came as a surprise due to new arguments. Consequently, he believes that in light of these shifting positions, it is more appropriate to let the Supreme Court decide the matter.
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.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller invites Vadim Belobrovtsevi to speak.
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.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev sharply criticized the return of the draft bill without changes, stressing that the amendments proposed by the Centre Party would have likely guaranteed presidential approval. He further questioned why the corrections were not considered, simultaneously predicting that the president will veto the legislation for the third time.
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.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg explained that although one dissenting opinion was noted in the minutes, the majority of the commission members present were in agreement and supported the described future action plan.
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 explained that the topic in question has not been discussed within the framework of the current draft bill because it does not fall within its scope, but he emphasized that a colleague always has the opportunity to raise this issue separately for discussion in the Riigikogu.
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 drew attention to the criticism contained in the President’s letter, according to which the concept of ‘threat’ in the law concerning the activities of religious associations is defined too broadly, thereby forcing the implementing authority to interpret the content of these general requirements independently. She then asked the committee how they discussed this specific objection and what conclusion they 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.
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.
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.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg confirmed that the issue at hand was thoroughly documented, and that the decision-making process relied upon the most competent public law experts on religious matters, including the Legal Adviser to the President of the Republic and the Adviser of the Ministry of the Interior’s Religious Affairs Department. Their views offered clear and understandable responses to the objections presented.
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 acknowledges the exceptionally high standard of the president's legal advisors but calls into question the competence of the commission. He asked the rapporteur which commission members could possibly match the advisors in terms of legal expertise, demanding the public disclosure of their names, legal education, and professional background.
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.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal acknowledges the exceptionally high standard of the President's legal advisors but wants to know which members of the commission—who debated the matter at length and in depth—would be able to match that level, given their legal expertise and background, requesting the presenter to name specific individuals and their qualifications.
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 is addressing the chairman of the Constitutional Committee with a question concerning the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, emphasizing that since Sections 40 and 130 of the Constitution prohibit the restriction of religious freedom even during a state of emergency or martial law, it is incomprehensible how the current draft bill provides for its restriction under normal circumstances, and is requesting clarification regarding the committee's discussion and the chairman's position on the matter.
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 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.
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 responded to Mr. Vooglaid, acknowledging the divergence of views, but categorically affirmed that the Constitutional Committee had addressed the question of religious freedom during the processing of the draft legislation. Furthermore, it is their firm conviction that this draft bill neither restricts nor affects the existing religious practices of congregations or their members whatsoever, and therefore, he is unable to provide the questioner with the anticipated answer.
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.
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 Speaker Arvo Aller concluded the current round of questions, clarified the one-question rule applicable to Riigikogu members for the subsequent presenters as well, and then yielded the floor to Andre Hanimägi, a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, as the next rapporteur.
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.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi summarizes the discussion held by the Legal Affairs Committee regarding the amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act, which had been sent back by the President of the Republic. The President's legal advisor deemed the law disproportionate and unconstitutional, arguing that it could potentially interfere with doctrinal ties. Conversely, the representative of the Ministry of the Interior defended the law's constitutionality and necessity for regulating cross-border security threats. Consequently, the committee voted 8:2 to support the re-adoption of the law without making any changes.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi reports on the session of the Legal Affairs Committee, where they discussed the amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act that had been sent back by the President of the Republic. The report highlighted a sharp confrontation between the arguments of the President's legal advisor (who deemed the act unconstitutional, citing ambiguity and the threat to doctrinal ties) and the advisor from the Ministry of the Interior (who defended the act as necessary for security and fully constitutional). Despite this constitutional disagreement, the Legal Affairs Committee made a procedural decision, voting 8:2, to support the re-adoption of the act in its original, unchanged form.
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 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.
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.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi explained that the Legal Affairs Committee, during the discussion of the bill, focused solely on its constitutionality, rather than reopening its substantive merits. He repeatedly stressed that the bill's purpose is neither to restrict religious freedom nor is it in any way contradictory to 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stressed that while experts, including the President's legal counsel and Varro Vooglaid, hold differing views regarding the constitutionality of restricting religious freedom—the President's counsel having confirmed that such restriction is possible—the ultimate decision-making power lies with the Riigikogu and, if needed, the Supreme Court, as they are the most competent authorities to rule on these matters.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi emphasized that although legal experts, including the President's advisor and Varro Vooglaid, hold differing views on the constitutionality of restricting religious freedom—the President's advisor confirmed its possibility—the final decision-making authority rests with the Riigikogu and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, who are indeed the most competent arbiters of this issue.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Kalle Grünthal raised a procedural question with the presiding officer.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Arvo Aller Kalle Grünthal submitted a procedural question to 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
Kalle Grünthal expressed his indignation that the presenter failed to answer his very specific question regarding constitutional law experts comparable to Varro Vooglaid, suspecting that the presenter either hadn't heard or was avoiding the topic, and demanded that the question be repeated.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 the initial phase of the bill (the prelude), a stage he didn't participate in. He argues that the paragraphs were left without substance back then and that too much room for delegation was granted, leading to ambiguity. He questions why they didn't get straight to specifics, suggesting that this vagueness is unlikely to produce a good outcome.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi responded to questions regarding the draft law, which the president has repeatedly rejected, explaining that although the overly vague concepts within the law were corrected following the previous rejection, and the Ministry of the Interior emphasizes the necessity of discretionary power, the focus of the president’s second rejection has shifted away from technical details toward the broader constitutional framework and the question of religious freedom, which now constitutes the primary point of contention.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi explained that the dispute over the bill, which the president has repeatedly rejected, concerns the scope of the margin of discretion. Furthermore, the Ministry of the Interior deems it necessary to have the ability to view evidence during its collection, while the president has shifted the focus from the initially specified vague concepts to the broader question of the framework of religious freedom and the constitution, essentially asking whether it is even legally possible to carry out this activity.
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
Vadim Belobrovtsev expressed skepticism regarding the Ministry of the Interior's stance that the bill in question does not infringe upon religious freedom, referencing the president's previous refusal (veto). He asked the committee directly why they had not considered substantively amending the bill or scrapping it entirely, given that its repeated deliberation has become farcical.
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
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.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi explained that although there is no conflict of values between the Riigikogu (Parliament) and the President, and both understand the bill's objective of addressing security threats, a disagreement emerged concerning the chosen solution. Consequently, the Legal Affairs Committee found that the most reasonable course of action, within the democratic process, is to refer the bill to the Supreme Court for the resolution of this difference of opinion and for expert analysis.
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
Andre Hanimägi emphasizes that despite thorough discussion and the President's understanding of the law's objective (security threats), a disagreement arose between the parliament and the president regarding the chosen solution. Consequently, the Legal Affairs Committee decided to send the law to the Supreme Court for expert assessment, viewing this as a completely normal solution in a democratic parliamentary state when the legislature and the president disagree.
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 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.
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.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi stated that although the debate surrounding the draft legislation resulted in numerous disagreements, both the Legal Affairs Committee and the Constitutional Committee concluded that the law could be adopted without amendments, reflecting the reality that differing viewpoints coexist.
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 handling of the bill, which the President of the Republic has twice returned due to its conflict with the constitution, calling the entire situation a farce. He blames the initiators for rejecting the constructive, substantive amendments proposed by the Centre Party and for resubmitting the bill in its unchanged form, which means it will now head to the Supreme Court. The speaker deems the bill a legal defect and calls on the deputies to vote against its adoption in order to consign it 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.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev sharply criticizes the ongoing legislative process, calling it a farce, given that the President has already rejected the bill twice due to its unconstitutionality. He accuses the bill’s initiators of refusing to make any substantive amendments, voting down the Centre Party’s constructive proposals, and sending the bill back into procedure unchanged, which means it will now go to the Supreme Court. The speaker considers the bill to be a political and legal disaster from the very beginning and calls on all deputies to vote against it and consign it to the dustbin of history.
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.
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 expresses deepening embarrassment regarding the bill under discussion, emphasizing the compelling warnings issued by the President's legal advisor about its overly broad implications (including for the media and political parties). He sharply criticizes the Riigikogu's sloppy legislative process, where crucial sections are left undefined and interpretation is delegated to officials, even though the legislature itself should be completing its work to the fullest extent possible.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits expressed his embarrassment regarding the bill under discussion, sharply criticizing the Riigikogu's laxity in the legislative process. He noted that crucial clauses are left without substance, and the power of interpretation is delegated to ministry officials rather than the legislators themselves. He relies on the compelling arguments put forth by the president's legal adviser, warning that the bill's scope is excessively broad, reaching from religious associations to the press, non-profit organizations, and political parties. He concludes that while the bill might be acceptable concerning purely administrative matters, its drafters have attempted to overreach by starting to regulate even people's attitudes and opinions.
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.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits criticizes the excessive generality of the draft bill under discussion, warning that vague provisions grant officials dangerously broad authority to start scrutinizing both organizations and people's mindsets—a situation reminiscent of Interior Minister Taro's previous idea for a 'thought police.' Consequently, he demands that the bill either be made more specific or scrapped entirely.
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.
Madis Timpson
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Madis Timpson emphasized that ensuring national security is a core function, and the bill's objective—to limit foreign influence activities conducted under the guise of religious freedom—is legitimate, even though there is a civil debate ongoing regarding its proportionality. He clarified that this constitutes an abstract norm, providing a value-based assessment that Estonia will not tolerate interference in its internal affairs. He stressed, however, that the amendments do not restrict anyone's religious freedom or close churches, and he confirmed the Reform Party faction's support for adopting the bill in its unamended form.
Madis Timpson
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Madis Timpson emphasized that ensuring national security is a core function, and although opinions differ regarding the proportionality of the bill, the objective—to limit foreign intervention and influence activities carried out under the guise of religious freedom and canonical ties—is entirely legitimate. He confirmed that the amendments do not restrict religious freedom or prohibit any denomination; rather, they provide an abstract, value-based assessment of the security threat originating from the leaders of the entire organization. For this reason, the Reform Party faction supports adopting the bill in its current, unamended form.
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
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.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder emphasizes that the bill aimed at reducing the political influence of congregations under Moscow’s jurisdiction is intended to curb the network supporting Russian aggression, not restrict religious freedom. He commends the Riigikogu’s thorough work, the amendment of the law in line with the presidential veto, and the broad support (68 votes), which reflects the position of the overwhelming majority of the people’s representatives. Furthermore, he calls on the President to promulgate the law, noting that the principle of the rule of law does not necessitate unnecessary litigation, which would only escalate tensions at the expense of the state's security interests.
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 firmly supports the bill aimed at reducing the political influence of the Moscow Patriarchate, viewing it as part of realizing Russia’s ideology of aggression. He emphasizes that Parliament, having conducted a thorough debate and taken the President’s veto into account, has achieved a sufficient majority. Therefore, the law should be promulgated in the interest of security, thereby avoiding the unnecessary escalation of tensions that would result from appealing to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, he reproaches the government and the president for their inadequate prior coordination.
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, 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.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg, speaking on behalf of Eesti 200, justifies the initiation of the legislative amendment exclusively on security considerations, arguing that Russia uses the Russian Orthodox Church, which is subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate, as a weapon of hybrid warfare. He highlights specific examples, including Patriarch Kirill's calls for military action, the training of clergy to serve in the war zone, and their direct participation in the aggression in Ukraine. At the same time, he criticizes the local church operating in Estonia, which has never distanced itself from or condemned the aggressive activities of its superior church.
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, explained that the initiation of this current legislative amendment is driven exclusively by security considerations, as Russia is using the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), which is subordinate to Moscow, as a weapon of hybrid warfare to bless the aggression in Ukraine. He highlighted several recent and concrete examples confirming the direct involvement of ROC clergy in military activities and the promotion of war (including pocket guides for children and military training for the clergy). Furthermore, he sharply criticized the inability of the Estonian branch to distance itself from its superior church's position supporting the war effort, viewing it as a continuing tool of imperialist 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, on behalf of the Eesti 200 faction, stressed that the bill under discussion is a broader security issue that requires the severing of dangerous cross-border religious ties, referencing the example of the Russian Orthodox Church and warning against situations where a religious leader located in a foreign country would start violently demanding the establishment of Sharia in Estonia, which is why the law must be adopted in its unamended form to prevent the spread of religious intolerance and terrorist activities.
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 stresses that the purpose of this current legislative amendment is to protect the security of the Estonian state and prevent influence activities carried out under the guise of religious freedom, rather than restricting people's personal faith or beliefs, emphasizing that religious freedom is not absolute; The Social Democrats support the adoption of the bill and view a potential appeal to the Supreme Court as a normal democratic process, which is not a catastrophe.
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.
Andre Hanimägi
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Andre Hanimägi explains that the draft law under discussion is not aimed at restricting personal religious freedom or implementing thought control. Rather, its purpose, based on security considerations, is to prevent influence activities directed against the Estonian state that might be concealed behind religious organizations, emphasizing that religious freedom is not absolute. The Social Democrats support the adoption of the bill and view a potential appeal to the Supreme Court as a normal democratic process that should not be feared.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
Deputy Speaker Arvo Aller closed the debates and put to a vote before the members of the Riigikogu the re-adoption, in an unchanged form, of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act, which had been returned by the President of the Republic, emphasizing that a majority vote of the full composition of the Riigikogu was required for this.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Arvo Aller concluded the debate and called upon the Riigikogu members to vote on the re-adoption, without changes, of the amendment to the Churches and Congregations Act that had been returned by the President of the Republic, stressing that this required a majority vote of the full Riigikogu 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.