Session Profile: Helle-Moonika Helme
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
2024-11-12
Political Position
The political position is contradictory: they support the reduction of bureaucracy, but strongly oppose the ideological infantilism, the climate hoax, and the fearmongering embedded in the draft legislation. The criticism targets a value-based framework that prioritizes supporting rural life and preventing forced relocation, thereby contrasting sharply with the government’s tax policy.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise on spatial planning and forced mobility, highlighting the crucial role of infrastructure in rural areas (jobs, schools, transport). They use Finnish socialist real estate policies and their failure to prevent segregation as a point of comparison. The focus is on the practical consequences of these policies for the daily lives of rural inhabitants.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, employing heavily loaded terms such as "climate lie" and "ideological infantilism." The appeals are a blend of logical criticism (Tallinn-centricity) and value-based condemnation (socialist terminology), with questions posed directly to the presenter. The tone is anxious and accusatory, emphasizing the intimidation of people.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
There is insufficient data regarding the frequency or patterns of appearances, as only two speeches from a single session were presented. The pattern of activity indicates active participation in the plenary session during the debate on the bill by posing questions.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is aimed at the ideological content of the draft bill and its proponents, who are accused of climate deception and fearmongering. Criticism is also directed at the government's policy, which forces people to travel and taxes their cars. The ideological opponents are linked to the terminology and policies of "red socialists."
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Information regarding cooperation, willingness to compromise, or cross-party activity was not presented in the speeches. The speaker is acting more as a critical opponent, challenging the work of the committee and the substance of the draft legislation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
A strong regional focus is placed on rural areas, criticizing the draft bill for being Tallinn-centric and regulating movement within a 3 km radius. They emphasize the need to restore jobs, schools, and adequate public transportation in rural areas to reduce the necessity of compulsory travel. It is claimed that the law only regulates life in Tallinn.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
It supports reducing bureaucracy and duplication. Its economic stance focuses on improving the living conditions in rural areas and criticizes taxation that penalizes forced commuters (car users). It advocates for investments that would bring services and jobs back to the countryside.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Strong opposition to measures preventing ideological segregation, which are associated with socialist affirmative action and forced social mixing. Emphasis is placed on the importance of cultural differences and residents' safety, citing examples from Finland where families do not want convicted individuals on probation or parole as neighbors.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently centered on challenging the ideological provisions of the spatial design bill. The speaker is acting as a critical opponent of the bill, seeking clarification regarding its scope and the provisions aimed at preventing social segregation, while simultaneously supporting the sections of the bill that reduce bureaucracy.
2 Speeches Analyzed