By Plenary Sessions: Andre Hanimägi

The style is formal, procedural, and analytical, focusing on conveying the work of the Legal Affairs Committee and the opinion of the Government of the Republic. The speaker uses logical arguments and technical terms, avoiding emotional appeals. In the third speech, the tone is more defensive, intended to refute the impression of selective interpretation and to clarify the actual nature of the deadlines for applications for review.

The style is highly formal, neutral, and procedural, concentrating on the detailed and chronological reporting of the proceedings within the Riigikogu Legal Affairs Committee. The speaker employs a logical structure to clarify the substance of the draft legislation, the progression of the debate, and the consensus-based procedural rulings. Emotional or personal appeals are entirely lacking.

The rhetorical style is formal and inquisitive, respectfully addressing the chairman and the minister. The speaker begins with an emotional assessment ("How good it would be...") and then moves on to posing a logical, clarifying question in order to verify the actual impact of the legislative amendment.

The tone is one of concern and explanation, highlighting the existing "confusion" surrounding the issue. The style is relatively logical and fact-based, relying heavily on legal statutes and specific juridical details. The speaker also employs persuasive appeals aimed at preventing the negative public perception that pedophiles are being allowed to work with young people.