By Plenary Sessions: Anti Haugas
Total Sessions: 27
Fully Profiled: 27
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The speaker's style is formal, neutral, and strictly procedural, focusing on reporting the commission's work and decisions. Objective language is used, listing facts (dates, participants, decisions) while avoiding emotional or personal appeals. The tone is informative and suitable for the role of a presenter.
2025-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 6th sitting, plenary session.
Rhetoric is formal, analytical, and interrogative, focusing on logical and fact-based appeals. The style is courteous, but it requires structured responses concerning specific reference points and the impact of political decisions.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The rhetorical style is sharp, accusatory, and ironic, repeatedly using the phrase "embarrassing" and accusing opponents of turning the situation into a circus. Rhetorical questions are employed to challenge the opponents' knowledge and motives, as well as sarcasm (for example, regarding the isolation of EKRE). The tone is predominantly confrontational and demands a swift resolution to the situation.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, logical, and geared towards persuasion, emphasizing the urgency of achieving legal clarity. It utilizes practical and emotionally charged examples (e.g., child abduction, Lithuanian car thieves) to illustrate the necessity of the draft legislation. When responding to questions, the speaker maintains a defensive yet open tone, attempting to balance the restriction of rights against the benefits of security.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The style is inquisitive and analytical, relying heavily on real-life examples (a mother with small children and a student) to highlight the legal issue. The discourse is formal and focuses on a logical argument concerning the shortcomings of the current regulation, avoiding emotional appeals.
2025-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session.
The style is analytical and pragmatic, concentrating on the economic and social impact of political decisions. A critical yet indirect tone is employed concerning the opponent's ideological direction, specifically referencing Tanel Kiik’s "ideological wandering." The argument relies on the Swedish example as a cautionary case study to justify Estonia's pragmatic approach.
2025-06-04
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical and logical, focusing on the structural breakdown of problems and the provision of solutions. The speaker draws parallels from the business sector to support the argument and emphasizes procedural correctness, all while maintaining a formal and professional tone. The appeal is aimed at rationality and fair tax collection.
2025-04-09
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The style is explanatory and persuasive, intended to allay concerns regarding the restriction of religious freedom by emphasizing the law's security objective. The speaker employs logical arguments to justify the legal amendment, citing previous Riigikogu declarations concerning international terrorist organizations. The tone is resolute and supportive.
2025-03-20
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is twofold: one speaker is analytical and cautious, posing rhetorical questions regarding the consequences of drastic decisions (total border closure). The second speaker (the commission rapporteur) is formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on objectively conveying the commission's discussion and decisions.
2025-02-19
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is serious and forceful, employing strongly condemnatory language against the Patriarch of Moscow (who is referred to as a war criminal and aggressor) and his activities. The speaker balances emotional references to war crimes (rape, fatalities) with legal and fact-based arguments (analysis of the charter, content of the draft law). The presentation is formal and persuasive, with the goal of mobilizing support.
2025-01-22
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session.
The style of speech is analytical, formal, and focused on logic, emphasizing the inefficiency of the measures and their cost to the state. Rhetorical questions and strong contrast are used (7 euros of benefit vs. a manifold higher cost to the state) to justify the superiority of targeted aid measures. The tone is persuasive and rational, not emotional.
2024-12-16
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The style is formal and data-driven, addressing the audience as "Honorable members of the Riigikogu! Dear colleagues!" The tone is generally optimistic (referencing progress made in reducing violent crimes and a low perception of crime), but also includes an urgent note concerning juvenile drug issues and recidivism. Logical appeals and statistical comparisons with the European Union are used to support the arguments.
2024-12-12
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The style of discourse is investigative and reflective, presenting the question as a novel idea ("an intriguing question," "A thought simply occurred to me"). The approach is logical and theoretical, focusing on the feasibility of the political solution. The tone is neutral and information-seeking.
2024-12-10
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and focuses on political inquiry and clarifying legislative details. The tone is constructive and inquisitive, presenting the idea as a further development upon the existing consensus, without emotional or personal appeals.
2024-12-04
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is interrogative, analytical, and formal, emphasizing the necessity of correctness ("I ask in order to be correct"). The speaker employs logical appeal, attempting to clarify the differences between legal concepts in a businesslike and neutral tone.
2024-11-13
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is highly formal, informative, and procedural, fitting the role of a committee rapporteur addressing the plenary session. The tone is neutral and explanatory, focusing on facts and procedural reporting. Emotional or persuasive appeals are absent; the emphasis is placed on the logical and clarifying delivery of information.
2024-11-05
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fourth session, plenary session
The style of address is formal and respectful, directed towards the Prime Minister with a constructive question. The tone is optimistic ("very pleased to read") and centers on a logical, politically strategic discussion.
2024-10-09
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fourth Session, Plenary Session.
The rhetorical style is formal and direct, presenting a critical question to the committee chairman. The tone is concerned and demanding, emphasizing the unsustainability of the issue and demanding information regarding its discussion within the committee. The appeal is logical and focuses on a specific procedural irregularity.
2024-09-16
The 15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting.
The style is formal, professional, and moderately optimistic, emphasizing achievements and the high level of trust placed in state institutions. Both logical arguments (the necessity of funding) and concrete examples of local initiative (the Luutsniku unit) are employed. However, concerns are simultaneously raised regarding deficiencies in training infrastructure and instructors, creating a sense that there is only a narrow window of opportunity for action.
2024-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is highly formal, objective, and procedural, particularly in reports concerning the handling of draft legislation. The speaker presents facts, references committee decisions and proposed amendments, while strictly avoiding emotional or personal appeals. The objective is to communicate precise and logical information regarding the progress of the legislative process.
2024-06-03
Fifteenth Riigikogu, third session, plenary sitting.
The style is analytical and inquisitive, aimed at initiating a dialogue with the person speaking at the Riigikogu podium, while seeking confirmation for one's own position. Personal experience and historical memory are utilized to support the argument. The tone is logical and constructive, emphasizing the commendable nature of informational work.
2024-05-28
15th Riigikogu, third session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, analytical, and concerned, focusing on logical arguments regarding the system's sustainability. The speaker presents facts (demographic shift, diminished responsibility) and concludes with a pointed question about long-term policy, seeking the opposing side's personal opinion.
2024-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is direct, formal, and interrogative. The speaker poses clear, policy-focused questions regarding future plans and measures, emphasizing the development and refinement of services. The first address is procedural and resolute, offering a concrete proposal to end the obstruction.
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
The style is formal, neutral, and procedural, focusing on conveying the decisions and discussions of the Legal Committee in the role of a rapporteur. The speaker relies on logical arguments and facts, such as consensus decisions and economic calculations, to justify the legislative amendments. Emotional appeals are absent; the emphasis is on procedural accuracy.
2024-04-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is analytical and constructive, focusing on identifying problems and offering practical solutions. The speaker employs logical arguments, highlighting indirect benefits (such as the improvement in the national team's level) while presenting specific costs. The tone is generally factual and suggestive, inviting discussion and calling for a debate.
2024-03-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
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.
2024-02-14
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The speaker's style is informative and casual, utilizing simple, conversational language ("I just wanted to mention"). The statement is purely factual and observation-based, focusing on confirming the physical presence of a specific politician (Martin Helme). The tone is neutral and procedural.