Agenda Profile: Kalle Grünthal
Second reading of the draft law amending the Police and Border Guard Act (670 SE)
2025-09-24
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to Draft Bill 670 SE, which concerns the use of license plate recognition cameras, arguing that it infringes upon constitutional rights and the inviolability of private life. The speaker employs a value-based framework, warning against the creation of a "digital concentration camp" and stressing that maintaining order must not outweigh the right to privacy. The stance is intensely confrontational and centered on protecting the principles of the rule of law.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates deep legal expertise by referencing precise legal provisions, including § 315 of the Penal Code (illegal surveillance activities), § 34 of the Law Enforcement Act, and §§ 26 and 33 of the Constitution. This specialized knowledge is utilized to prove both the illegality of previous information gathering and the unconstitutionality of the draft bill. He/She explains technical details, such as how a license plate recognition camera records individuals nearby in addition to those inside the vehicle.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is highly combative, sharp, and alarmist, using strong and polarizing metaphors such as "digital concentration camp." Although the argumentation relies on detailed legal references and logical analysis, the overall tone is emotional and focuses on the urgency of protecting fundamental rights. The speaker addresses the opponents directly, naming them specifically and criticizing their positions.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker's patterns of activity include active legal action, including filing a complaint with the Prosecutor's Office regarding secret surveillance and exercising the right to appeal to contest the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings. He/She also refers to the work of the Chancellor of Justice's office, which helped clarify the collection of covert information.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are Andre Hanimägi, who has been dubbed a "proponent of the digital concentration camp," along with the Social Democrats and the coalition supporting the bill. The criticism is intense and substantive, accusing the opponents of violating the constitution, supporting illegal surveillance, and disregarding personal data protection requirements. The speaker shows no willingness to compromise.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The cooperative style indicates ideological alignment with other critics, as the speaker notes that Varro Vooglaid correctly pointed out the need for a balance between order and security and the protection of fundamental rights. There is no evidence of broad-based cooperation or a willingness to compromise with the coalition or the Social Democrats.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
A regional focus is lacking; the approach is national and centers on legislation and constitutionality. Specific locations (Tartu Road, Viljandi Road) are mentioned only as examples where the required video surveillance notification signs are missing.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The primary social issue is the protection of civil liberties and privacy versus national security and order. The speaker prioritizes fundamental rights, criticizing the police's expanding surveillance powers as a violation of privacy, particularly concerning the collection of covert information and the establishment of surveillance systems. He/She emphasizes the necessity of informing individuals when their data is being processed.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on opposing Bill 670 SE (Amendment to the Police and Border Guard Act). The speaker is a staunch opponent, emphasizing that the bill neither regulates the number nor the location of license plate recognition cameras, nor does it ensure the required public notification regarding video surveillance. They demand that before the system is put into effect, proper notification must be guaranteed regarding this information gathering, which inherently restricts fundamental rights.
1 Speeches Analyzed