By Plenary Sessions: Varro Vooglaid

The main opponent is Jaanus Karilaid and the majority supporting the bill, who are accused of violating the constitution and restricting religious freedom. The criticism is intense and substantive, accusing the opponents of pushing through political ambitions under the pretext of a security threat. The speaker criticizes the opponents for following the example of the Soviet Union when interfering in religious matters, and for attempting to create the image of a patriot.

The criticism is aimed at law enforcement agencies (the Financial Intelligence Unit, the Police and Border Guard Board, the Internal Security Service) and government politicians (interior ministers) who are suspected of corruption and cooperation with the criminal world. The speaker sharply criticizes the handling of the draft bill, viewing it as a potential action to retroactively legalize previous mass data collection. The opposition is intense and stems from a lack of credibility in these structures, which is why they refuse to grant them additional tools.

The primary opposition is aimed at the government and specific ministers, criticizing their unreliability during negotiations and their tendency to distance themselves from responsibility. The criticism is intense and is justified both by conflicts of values (such as the bringing in of prisoners) and by procedural violations (the concealment of negotiations).

The main opponents are the bill's proponents and the coalition, who are accused of deliberately adopting an unconstitutional law and using a false security argument. The criticism is intense and focuses both on the political objective (forcing the church) and procedural disregard (ignoring the president's criticism and making only cosmetic changes).

The opposition is aimed directly at the government and the prime minister, criticizing both specific political decisions (such as bringing in prisoners) and the broader results of their governance (societal polarization, tax hikes). The criticism is intense and directly accuses the government of causing a drastic decline in the Estonian people's sense of societal belonging since taking office. They also criticize the government for ignoring Kapo's (Internal Security Service) assessments regarding security threats.

The main criticism is aimed at the University of Tartu's higher management level for tolerating the decline in the standard of legal education, and at the Riigikogu majority for the prevailing indifference toward the constitution. The criticism is institutional and focuses on competence deficits, noting that political ambitions often subordinate the constitution.

The main targets of criticism are the law enforcement structures (PPA) for their independent actions ("going rogue" or "running amok") and the government (the Prime Minister, Minister of the Interior, Minister of Justice) for their alleged ignorance or avoidance of responsibility. The criticism is intense and procedural, focusing on the fact that the government is attempting to hastily cobble together a legal basis instead of resolving the question of accountability. The speaker finds the ministers' claimed ignorance extremely implausible or notes that it points to a serious failure of political leadership.