By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The primary adversary is the minister and the government, who stand accused of systematic deceit, concealment, and repeatedly dodging questions. The criticism is fiercely intense, ranging from demands for political accountability all the way up to suggestions of criminal charges and jail time. Compromise is off the table; only resignation is being demanded.

The confrontation is aimed at the government and the initiators of the bills, who are criticized for using the security threat as a mere slogan without providing substantive arguments. The criticism is intense and focuses on procedural unfairness, accusing the opponents of utilizing state secrets to bolster their political argument. He warns that the government’s actions are creating a pretext for Russian intervention.

The main opponents are the government (especially Interior Minister Läänemets) and the bill's supporters, who are being accused of demagoguery, ignorance, and infringing upon religious freedom. The criticism is intense, focusing on political incompetence and the trampling of the principles of the rule of law. The speaker asserts that the opponents' actions are hostile and provoke a genuine security threat, meaning compromise is ruled out and the bill must be rejected.

The primary adversary is the government coalition, which is being criticized for restricting religious freedom and increasing security risks. The criticism is intense and policy-driven, accusing the government of replacing dialogue with threats issued from a position of strength, and abandoning the ideals of democracy and religious freedom.

The main opponent is the Prime Minister and the government, whose resignation is being demanded due to the loss of public trust. The criticism is intense and encompasses both political failures (tax hikes, family policy) and ethical/legal questions (a criminal pattern in the energy sector, attacks against the rule of law). Instead of seeking compromise, the demand is for accountability.

The primary conflict is between the government and the relevant minister, who is being criticized for failing to present concrete facts that would justify the mandatory closure. The criticism is both procedural and substantive, accusing the opposing party of having allowed "sober judgment to switch off" whenever Moscow-themed keywords are mentioned. Compromise is ruled out if the principles of the rule of law are violated.

The primary opposition targets the government's foreign policy and strategic choices, which are accused of obediently adhering to allied guidelines. The criticism is intense and policy-driven, raising doubts about the protection of Estonia's national interests. The opponent's viewpoints are presumed to be purely rejectionist and unfounded.