Agenda Profile: Helle-Moonika Helme
Draft law amending the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (536 SE) – second reading
2025-02-25
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the constitutional amendment bill (536 SE) in its current form, as it grants voting rights to individuals with undetermined citizenship, which is viewed as a threat to Estonia's independence. The speaker sharply criticizes the casual alteration and distortion of the constitution, emphasizing a value-based opposition to the influence of globalists and progressives. He demands greater consistency and consensus from the government and the commission in the preparation of the bill.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge of constitutional law, referencing the history of the constitution's drafting and the principles violated in the context of e-elections (secrecy, timeliness, transparency, and verifiability). He/She is also familiar with legislative procedures, criticizing the government's inconsistency when submitting draft legislation. He/She knows that the Republic of Estonia lacks comprehensive data regarding dual citizenship and the undermining of the state.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is extremely combative, emotional, and inflammatory, utilizing aggressive labeling and pejoratives ("a bunch of lunatics," "enemies of the Estonian state," "the fish-eyed crowd"). The appeals are primarily value-based, accusing opponents of twisting the constitution and undermining the Estonian state. The tone is accusatory and demanding, especially when directed at the government.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active during Riigikogu sessions, specifically participating in the second reading of the draft act to amend the constitution. They pose questions to the rapporteur and deliver lengthy speeches, focusing on both procedural and substantive shortcomings. Other activity patterns (such as meetings, travel, or regularity) are not discernible from the speeches themselves.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the ruling coalition (Reform Party, Social Democrats, Eesti 200) and ideological groups who are labeled as "globalists," "liberals," and "progressivist activists." The criticism is fundamental and personal, accusing the opponents of twisting the constitution and acting hostilely towards the Estonian state. The speaker hints that the initiators of the bill might be working in the interests of Russia and the Kremlin.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker sharply criticized the government and the commission for their lack of coordination and unpreparedness in presenting the draft law, demanding agreement and the introduction of changes before moving forward. He specifically called for the removal of voting rights for 'grey passport holders,' but demonstrated no willingness to compromise with the bill's sponsors.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is entirely on national and constitutional issues, such as citizenship, e-voting, and family policy. There is no regional or local focus in the speeches, although there is an ongoing debate regarding the voting rights of local municipalities.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There is not enough data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker is vehemently opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage ("marriage equality"), viewing this as a blatant perversion of the constitution imposed by "woke activists." He/She stresses that the government is hostile toward families, especially large families, by cutting their benefits, which runs contrary to the constitutional principle of family protection.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative focus is on opposing the draft bill to amend the Constitution (536 SE), demanding the revocation of voting rights for persons with undetermined citizenship. Previous legislative acts (e-voting, marriage equality) are also criticized as being in conflict with the Constitution.
3 Speeches Analyzed