Session Profile: Anti Haugas
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
2024-03-06
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the draft bill that seeks to ban the wearing of the burqa and niqab in public spaces. The arguments are both value-based—focusing on the respect and protection of women—and political, emphasizing that punitive measures should be a last resort, prioritizing grassroots social work instead. The speaker believes that Estonia does not have a large enough Muslim community to justify or necessitate such a ban.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates practical expertise on the topic of intimate partner violence, citing their eight years of experience as an auxiliary police officer and their participation in night patrols. They employ social observations and statistical reasoning to assess the actual prevalence of wearing the burqa and niqab in Estonia (claiming they haven't seen them in shopping centers). Furthermore, they are familiar with trends spreading across Western society, where Muslim women are voluntarily refusing to wear coverings.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is measured, analytical, and respectful, beginning with the acknowledgment of shared values (respect for women). The speaker relies on logical arguments and personal experience to substantiate why punishment would be ineffective and potentially harmful. He/She uses examples of intimate partner violence cases to emphasize the necessity of social intervention.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker actively participates in the plenary session during the debate on the draft bill, delivering lengthy and substantive speeches. Regarding previous activity, eight years as an auxiliary police officer are mentioned, including regular night patrols, which points to extensive practical experience in the social field.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is directed against the solution proposed by the presenters of the specific draft bill (prohibition under the Law of Public Order), not against their goals, as it recognizes their desire to protect women. The criticism is policy-based, emphasizing that punishment is the wrong approach and that it may further isolate women from society, keeping them hidden from support organizations.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker shows a willingness to cooperate, emphasizing the factions' common understanding of the need to respect women. He supports the position of the government and another colleague (Eduard) that Estonia lacks a sufficient Muslim community for imposing a ban, thereby creating a coalition to oppose the given draft bill.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on the Estonian national level, analyzing the scope of the problem within local society (for example, the absence of burqa wearers in shopping centers). International comparison is also utilized, referencing the situation in France and the trends observed among Muslim youth in Western society.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The primary social focus is on intimate partner violence against women and ensuring women are protected from social isolation. The speaker emphasizes gender equality and the role of the social system and support networks in assisting women who are victims of violence. She/He supports women's free choice not to wear religious coverings, standing in opposition to coercion.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on opposing the amendment to the Law Enforcement Act concerning the prohibition of the burqa and niqab. The speaker is against the draft bill, preferring the application of existing legal frameworks (which prohibit coercion) and social intervention at the grassroots level over the creation of a new punitive law.
3 Speeches Analyzed