By Plenary Sessions: Helle-Moonika Helme

The style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, employing powerful metaphors (such as "festering sore" and "empire"). The speaker presents their arguments using rhetorical questions and stark contrasts, highlighting the injustice and political bias within the legal system. The overall tone is emotional and moralizing, rather than logical or data-driven.

The rhetorical style is combative and accusatory, utilizing strongly emotional and value-laden language, such as "anti-family decisions" and "the bill to pervert marriage." The speaker presents their views bluntly, combining moral criticism of the government with specific examples of rising prices for specific services.

The rhetorical style is sharply confrontational and accusatory, employing emotional appeals (intimidation, cynicism) to criticize the government's actions. Direct rhetorical questions are posed to the prime minister ("Why are you doing this?"), and emphasis is placed on the government's alleged inconsistency and dishonesty. The tone is more emotional and accusatory than data-driven, focusing instead on the political impact on people's lives.

The rhetorical style is predominantly confrontational and direct, especially when dealing with social and immigration issues. Strong accusations of hypocrisy are employed, such as the phrase "hypocrisy cubed." At the same time, they manage to remain polite and appreciative toward any minister who explains matters clearly. The style utilizes emotional appeals (indigenous rights, birds being ground up) and sharp analogies ("a broken gramophone").

The rhetorical style is extremely aggressive, accusatory, and dramatic, employing strong emotional phrases such as "pure theft" and "folly." Alongside logical arguments, personal allusions are used to discredit opponents (e.g., the role of the prime minister's lawyer, citing the Barbie movie) and cultural parallels ("Fools of Fame"). The overall tone is condemnatory and cautionary.

The rhetorical style is combative and sharply critical, often employing rhetorical questions and powerful metaphors ("pyramid scheme," "verbal sleight of hand"). It appeals to logic and common sense ("people of sound mind will understand"), stressing the hypocrisy and lack of substance in the opposing side's arguments. The tone is formal, yet emotionally charged.

The rhetorical style is combative, critical, and accusatory, often employing rhetorical questions ("what world are you people living in?") and irony. Strong historical comparisons are utilized, linking the government’s coercive policies to communist and totalitarian regimes. The speaker directly accuses the government of lying (specifically regarding the abolition of the terms "mother" and "father").