Session Profile: Kalle Grünthal
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
2025-02-26
Political Position
The political focus centers on two main issues: protecting the interests of farmers regarding damage caused by nuisance species (migratory birds and wild animals), and strong skepticism toward the science and political decisions promoted during the COVID-19 pandemic, often referred to as potential "pseudoscience." A pragmatic approach to lawmaking is preferred, ensuring that good ideas are not killed off due to legal deficiencies. The skepticism concerning the political bias of science is strong and value-based.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge regarding the regulation of agriculture and wildlife damage, specifically inquiring about compensation for damage to sown seeds caused by migratory birds. They are also aware of international political developments (the reassessment of Canada's COVID decisions) and use terms like "nuisance specimen" and "parliamentary practice" in the context of lawmaking. They emphasize the need to distinguish between legal deficiencies and valuable ideas within the legislative process.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is sharp, demanding, and at times confrontational, especially towards the minister and the presenter. Emotionally charged and critical expressions are used (e.g., "pseudo-science," "off the leash," "lifesaver"), and the necessity of addressing responsibility and uncomfortable topics is emphasized. The speaker employs logical appeals to defend a good idea against technical shortcomings, but their interaction with the minister is strongly accusatory.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is highly active during the plenary session, posing a series of questions concerning both draft legislation and current political topics. This pattern demonstrates a rapid response to the answers provided, including demanding the minister's recall whenever they feel the question has been left unanswered.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
Strong opposition is directed at the minister and government representatives, who are criticized for failing to provide answers, avoiding uncomfortable topics, and searching for a "lifeline." Criticism is also leveled against the science policy that was in effect during COVID-19 and the alleged prohibition of alternative analyses. The criticism is both political and procedural, demanding that the minister be held accountable.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Although the speaker favors the parliamentary custom of refining good ideas that have legal flaws so they are not lost, his direct communication style with ministers and rapporteurs is rather demanding and critical. He emphasizes the need to refine the draft bill for improvement, rather than simply killing it.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The regional focus addresses the specific concerns of Estonian farmers, particularly the damage done to sown seeds by migratory birds, which involves issues of property loss and compensation. More broadly, national legislative and political topics are discussed, incorporating an international comparison (Canada) to illustrate political bias.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views center on protecting the interests of the agricultural sector, stressing the need to regulate property damage caused by harmful agents. Particular emphasis is placed on the fact that damage to sown seeds is serious and generally not subject to compensation, which suggests a desire to improve the economic situation of farmers.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issue is trust in science and political decisions, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where the speaker suspects political bias and the promotion of "fake science." He asks how science can be trusted when certain scientific analyses were banned and the science that was promoted later turns out to be incorrect.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is directed towards bills that regulate the culling of nuisance animals and wildlife when they cause property damage or pose a health risk. Furthermore, he/she emphasizes adherence to parliamentary practice to ensure the thorough refinement of submitted bills (e.g., those addressing the wolf problem), positioning himself/herself primarily as a demander of amendments and a critical questioner.
5 Speeches Analyzed