Agenda Profile: Peeter Ernits
Re-examination of the Act Amending the Act on Churches and Religious Communities (570 UA) Not Proclaimed by the President of the Republic
2025-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
Political Position
The speaker is strongly opposed to the third reading of the draft amendment to the Churches and Congregations Act, viewing it as unreasonable and frankly embarrassing ("hitting your head against a wall for the third time"). Their stance is value-based, emphasizing the danger that the expanded scope of the bill could threaten civil liberties and begin regulating "convictions" not only in religious associations, but also in non-profit organizations, political parties, and the press.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the quality of legislation and procedural defects, criticizing the Riigikogu’s "comfortable and sloppy" work when substantiating the content of the clauses. He relies on legal authority, convincingly citing the arguments of the President's legal advisor regarding the scope of delegation and the broader impacts of the draft bill. Additionally, he refers to his previous experience as a journalist and media executive to emphasize the law's threat to media freedom.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and metaphorical, using imagery such as "rams" and "ibexes," and expressing deepening embarrassment over the quality of lawmaking. The speaker relies on logical arguments, citing the legal counsel, but also employs emotional warnings concerning the control of thought and historical parallels. The tone is formal yet direct, accusing colleagues of laziness and laxity.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker participated in the Riigikogu plenary session debate and refers to their attendance at the Legal Affairs Committee meeting, where the draft bill was discussed and the views of the President's legal advisor were heard. They are an active critic of the legislative process, closely monitoring the handling of draft legislation and their subsequent failure to be properly substantiated.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The criticism is directed at the drafters of the bill, the Ministry of the Interior, and more broadly, the majority of the Riigikogu who introduced the bill for the third time. The opposition is intense, focusing on procedural errors and legislative convenience, which leads to dangerous delegation into the hands of officials. He/She contrasts the compelling arguments of the President's legal advisor with the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior's advisor.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker works in close substantive cooperation with the Office of the President of the Republic, relying entirely on the legal arguments put forth by the President's legal counsel. While there is no information regarding cross-party collaboration, he is attempting to engage colleagues by stressing the potential negative impact of the draft legislation on political parties.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is clearly on the national legislative process and fundamental legal principles, examining the relationships between the Riigikogu (Parliament), the President, and the Ministry of the Interior. Specific regional interests or projects are not addressed, with the exception of a brief reference to Kuremäe, which is used as a transition to a broader topic.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker strongly defends civil liberties and the autonomy of associations, opposing the expansion of state control over the "mindset" of religious associations, non-profit organizations, and political parties. He warns against the discretionary power delegated to Ministry of the Interior officials, which could lead to the creation of a "thought police," and emphasizes that the legislature should not regulate matters of doctrine.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is the rejection of Bill 570 UA, a measure the speaker strongly opposes. He emphasizes the necessity of fully fleshing out the legal provisions and refusing to delegate the legislature’s unfinished business to officials, criticizing the laxity and convenience inherent in the lawmaking process.
4 Speeches Analyzed