By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The main opposition is directed at the majority of the parliamentary committee, which voted 5:1 to reject the draft bill. The criticism is procedural, accusing them of labeling the issue a "pseudo-problem" and refusing to involve stakeholders or experts. The opposition is intense, suggesting a desire to kill the bill immediately, right in the bud.

The primary opponent is the Government of the Republic, particularly the Reform Party government, which is criticized for systematic procedural violations in the legislative process. The criticism is intense and focuses on the government's unwillingness to take the constitution seriously and its abandonment of the idea of the nation-state. The opposition targets both policy (the legalization of same-sex marriage) and procedures.

The main opposition is directed against the actions of the government and security agencies (PPA, KAPO) regarding the non-extension of Metropolitan Eugeni's residence permit. Criticism targets both the political prudence of the decision (straining relations with Russia) and its factual basis, demanding evidence be presented that the church leader supports the aggressor. The opposition is intense, as the action is being labeled "persecution."

Criticism is aimed at officials and politicians who ignore serious public health risks, as well as those who present inaccurate data regarding the tax burden (falsely claiming it is only 33%). The opposition targets political inaction, a lack of transparency, and the inability to address issues of significant social importance. A particular point of contention is the absence of public debate on crucial subjects.

The main confrontation is directed against the government and the Reform Party, who stand accused of abandoning liberal principles and implementing totalitarian methods. The criticism is intense, being both policy- and ideology-based, and specifically accuses the minister of failing to provide substantive answers.

The speaker sharply criticizes the coalition MPs for their passivity in the debate and for voting down draft legislation without substantive discussion. He/She also criticizes the stance of the Ministry of Justice and the government, which views the proposal as posing a problem regarding the separation of powers, and more broadly, state structures (PPA, police chiefs) for their lack of accountability when making unlawful decisions.

The main opponent is the Prime Minister and the government, who are criticized both for their policies (anti-family measures, lack of a demographic plan) and for their ethics and procedures (failure to respond, suspicion of a cover-up in the Lehtme case). The criticism is intense and accusatory, implying that the government's true interests (cheap labor) outweigh the interests of aiding Ukraine. The speaker shows no willingness to compromise, instead demanding an honest admission of the government's actions.

The criticism is aimed at the coalition's political culture, which dictates the automatic rejection of opposition bills, regardless of their substance. He/She accuses the current regulation of ideological coercion and humiliating treatment, viewing the threat of human trafficking as little more than a contrived excuse. He/She criticizes the state's approach, which presumes citizens' dishonesty rather than trust.

There is not enough data.