Session Profile: Helle-Moonika Helme
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
2025-02-26
Political Position
The political focus centers on two issues: regulating the population of large predators (wolves, bears) to prevent agricultural damage, and safeguarding the independence of science and scientists from political oversight. The speaker maintains that hunting legislation must be balanced and responsible, and sharply criticizes the government's attempts to politically steer science funding. These positions are strongly value-based, underscoring the responsibility of politicians both in preventing damage and guaranteeing academic freedom.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding large carnivore populations and hunting, detailing the impact of wolf packs on the natural food base and agricultural losses. They utilize concepts such as the "principle of natural selection" and reference the drastic decline in the deer population. Furthermore, they are knowledgeable about ongoing discussions concerning science policy and the oversight of funding, citing specific scientists and institutions.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and confrontational, particularly when criticizing the government's actions and accusing them of hypocrisy ("their deeds contradict their words"). Numerous rhetorical questions are employed to cast doubt on the opponents' motives, such as the Reform Party's alleged desire to take permanent control of science funding. While appeals are made to the responsibility and logic of politicians, emotional intensity is also employed when addressing the topic of attacking scientists.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
All speeches were delivered during a single session day (February 26, 2025) at the plenary sitting, suggesting active involvement in posing questions and participating in debates. The speaker repeatedly posed clarifying and challenging follow-up questions to both the rapporteur and the minister.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are the Reform Party and the government, who are accused of bringing the science funding system under political control and pushing science toward a biased focus. Specific politicians (Margit Sutrop, Irja Lutsar, Jevgeni Ossinovski) are also heavily criticized for attacking scientists (Mart Saarma) who express dissenting views. The criticism is intense and accuses the opponents of violating the freedom of science.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Not enough data
6 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on Estonian domestic issues (hunting laws, science funding), but the discussion includes significant international and regional comparisons. The speaker specifically asks about the severity of hunting regulations in neighboring countries, given that animals do not recognize state borders. Attempts to cut US science funding are also criticized, even though this is not something Estonia is directly in a position to criticize.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The economic viewpoints are expressed through concern over the damages inflicted upon the agricultural sector by large predators and migratory birds, emphasizing the necessity of protecting producers' interests. Furthermore, he/she indirectly supports saving state funds and criticizes the wasteful spending of money under the guise of science, citing the US example.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issue is the protection of scientists' independence and academic freedom from political interference. It is emphasized that scientists have a duty to question everything and must have the right to dissent, and politicians must not dictate what they say.
6 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus centers on the stringency and enforcement of hunting laws, particularly regarding the management of large predators, aimed at reducing agricultural losses. Furthermore, the structure of control mechanisms for science funding is also a key focus, with the speaker acting as a critical questioner who seeks to prevent political oversight of scientific research.
6 Speeches Analyzed