By Plenary Sessions: Züleyxa Izmailova
Total Sessions: 47
Fully Profiled: 47
2025-11-04
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The style of speech is critical and pressing, particularly on security issues, employing emotional appeals (the lives and health of the Estonian people). Direct questions are posed to the minister, demanding firm confirmation ("hand on heart, confirm"), which points to a high level of intensity and concern. Furthermore, the necessity of fairness and propriety in the legislative process is stressed.
2025-10-16
XV Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
The style is analytical and argumentative, balancing explanations based on economic theory with an emphasis on social and economic consequences. The tone is occasionally sharp toward opponents (e.g., criticism of the Centre Party and Eesti 200), but is generally solution-focused and urgent. Formal language is used, addressing both those present in the hall and the Estonian people.
2025-10-13
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and concerned, expressing frustration over the government's inaction and the poor preparation of the minister's responses. It utilizes both emotional appeals (sadness regarding the unprotected state of Estonian nature) and logical argumentation, referencing studies and previous promises. The minister's answers are described as vague and non-specific.
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is persuasive and forceful, combining emotional appeals (the decline in purchasing power, food security) with comprehensive data and facts. Sharp questions are posed regarding the fairness of government policy, and the public is addressed directly ("Dear people of Estonia, if you are still awake"). The tone is critical yet goal-oriented, offering concrete solutions for stabilizing the economy.
2025-10-07
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is critical and accusatory, but it opens with a personal appeal to the minister's prior reputation and patriotism. Strong emotional arguments are employed (conscience, a lesson to be learned), combined with logical arguments concerning fiscal risks. The tone is formal and direct, posing sharp questions to the opposition.
2025-10-06
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, critical, and sharp, especially when addressing the government, employing the expression "one mess chases the other with an axe." Both logical arguments (budget data) and emotional contrasts are utilized (empty prisons juxtaposed against empty maternity wards). The speaker poses numerous rhetorical questions to highlight the absurdity and injustice of the government's priorities, such as on the issue of food quality for children.
2025-09-24
15th Estonian Parliament, 6th sitting, press briefing
The rhetorical style is direct and provocative, employing repeated rhetorical questions ("Don't you trust...?") to cast doubt on the competence of the minister and the ministry. The tone is formal and focuses on logical and procedural criticism, demanding specific answers.
2025-09-22
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The language is formal and critical, posing a direct question to the minister regarding the justification of the government's decisions. The emphasis is placed on logical and value-based argumentation, connecting the role of the economic council with ensuring societal diversity and justice.
2025-09-15
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting
The style is formal and respectful (addressing [them] as "esteemed Speaker of the Riigikogu" and "dear Minister") while simultaneously being demanding. The speaker uses direct control questions, requiring a simple, unambiguous, fact-based answer ("is it no or yes") from the Minister.
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The style is formal and critical, addressing the minister directly. The speaker employs a logical appeal, emphasizing the injustice of the state's actions (taxing charity), and concludes with a direct question regarding justice. The tone is rather businesslike and demanding.
2025-09-08
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and concerned, employing rhetorical questions to highlight the government's lack of focus ("Doesn't it seem to you...?"). The appeals rely on statistical data and unfavorable comparisons. Strong metaphors are used, such as the fear that "one lost decade will soon become two" in the energy sector.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
The rhetorical style is often combative and critical, especially regarding procedural failures and directed at the opposition party (EKRE), using phrases like "disgraceful" and "embarrassing." When addressing social topics (abuse, rape), the tone is urgent and morally charged, demanding accountability from ministers and immediate action. Both emotional appeals (e.g., "horribly abused") and logical demands (e.g., internal control measures) are presented.
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is predominantly critical, sharp, and confrontational, especially towards the opposition party. Both logical arguments (the strategic objective of tax policy) and emotional appeals (the smell of smoke causing nausea, the sums lost by the elderly) are utilized. The tone becomes highly intense towards the end, accusing the opposing side of taking up the defense of criminals.
2025-06-12
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is sharply aggressive, accusatory, and emotionally charged, expressing personal frustration and embarrassment regarding the minister's responses. Direct accusations are employed (e.g., "Why are you hiding the analyses?") along with rhetorical questions to highlight the minister's unethical conduct. The tone remains formal, but the content is confrontational, focusing on ethical and procedural appeals.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is critical, direct, and at times confrontational, featuring sharp questions and accusing opponents of vagueness or negligence. Both emotional appeals (the difficult situation of families) and logical argumentation (questioning the logic of economic policy) are employed. The politician uses strong language, accusing the Reform Party of "throwing dust in people's eyes."
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, information briefing.
The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and value-driven, employing strong emotional appeals, and referencing the "shared cultural conscience" and "the sacred and inviolable." The speaker draws a clear contrast between values and economic gain (euros, cubic meters of timber), posing the questions sharply and insistently.
2025-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting.
The rhetorical style is formal, yet sharply confrontational and critical, especially towards the Minister, whose speech is labeled demagogic and "charming." The speaker poses direct questions that contain accusations (e.g., acting in the interests of monopolists) and expresses strong skepticism regarding the honesty of the responses ("the hope for this is very small"). The appeals are primarily logical, focusing on factual errors and the consequences of the policy (high prices).
2025-06-02
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session
The rhetorical style is highly passionate, accusatory, and urgent, emphasizing moral responsibility and matters of conscience. Strong emotional appeals and sharp criticism are employed (e.g., calling the situation a "total disaster" and the care home a "house of horrors"). Although the address is formally directed to the minister, the tone is predominantly confrontational and demanding, rather than conciliatory.
2025-05-21
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The speaker’s rhetorical style is sharply critical, accusatory, and forceful, making extensive use of rhetorical questions and powerful metaphors ("carefully polished advertising brochure," "smokescreen," "double-dealing"). The appeals target both logic (citing facts regarding the increase in emissions) and emotion, highlighting the danger posed to nature and democracy. The tone is formal, but the content is uncompromising and aggressive, accusing the government of a lack of transparency in its decision-making processes.
2025-05-21
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, information briefing.
The rhetorical style is sharp, skeptical, and interrogative, utilizing powerful metaphors ("the legitimization of forest theft") to criticize government policy. The speaker relies on logical appeals, posing a series of detailed, sequential questions to expose the alleged lack of clarity and balance in the policy.
2025-05-20
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and combative, employing sarcasm when describing the minister's self-assurance in assessing the finances of other countries. Figurative language (e.g., "moonakott") and logical appeals are utilized, highlighting the opposing side's political contradictions and demanding a simple explanation. The tone is formal, yet aggressively interrogative.
2025-05-19
15th Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The style is predominantly combative, urgent, and emotional, particularly when criticizing the government’s actions, utilizing metaphors (such as 'cutting through the roots') and strong imagery ('dead landscape,' 'shattered homes'). Emotional appeals are blended with an analytical framework, citing experts (Mati Sepp, Arno Lauk) and numerical facts. The discourse is formal, yet it directly addresses "Head Eesti inimesed" (Good people of Estonia).
2025-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is formal and respectful, directly addressing the chairman/director and the minister ("Esteemed Chairman," "Dear Minister"). The speaker employs a logical and question-centric approach to demand clarity regarding the planned activities and quality standards.
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and accusatory, focusing on the government's inaction and incompetence. The speaker employs rhetorical questions to challenge the readiness of the Ministry of Climate, alongside direct accusations (e.g., "allowing the situation to get this bad"). The address opens with a light, personal remark directed at the chair concerning the correct pronunciation of a name.
2025-04-23
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, direct, and analytical, presenting questions about specific facts and figures to the presenter ("Dear Mario!"). The tone is businesslike and focuses on logical appeals, demanding clarification regarding cost coverage and additional fees charged to consumers.
2025-04-23
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, press briefing
The rhetoric is formal, analytical, and heavily data-driven, utilizing statistics concerning gender inequality and the burden of care. Instead of emotional appeals, the approach relies on facts and research to present the government with a detailed and substantive question. The style is interrogative and demands concrete solutions from the Prime Minister.
2025-04-16
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, press briefing
The rhetorical style is critical and concerned, emphasizing the lack of stability and legal clarity. The tone is interrogative and demanding. Logical argumentation is employed, referencing the shift in promises and the public support for a logging moratorium. The style is formal, suitable for addressing a minister during a parliamentary information session.
2025-04-15
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The rhetorical style is highly emotional, urgent, and condemnatory, utilizing strong language (such as "appalling," "obscene and vile") to characterize the incident in question. The appeal is primarily moral, presenting direct and demanding questions to the minister concerning responsibility and systemic failure.
2025-03-26
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, press briefing
The rhetorical style is critical, demanding, and confrontational, especially towards the head of government. The speaker balances the logical appeal (extensive statistics and EU comparisons) with the emotional appeal (people have to save money by cutting back on food). Sharp rhetorical questions and strong contrasts are used, for example, taxing carrots at the same rate as luxury goods, to emphasize the injustice of the policy.
2025-03-18
Fifteenth Riigikogu, fifth sitting, plenary session
The style is formal and critical, delivered by posing a question to the Commission's representative during the plenary session. The speaker employs a rhetorical question to cast doubt on the policy's positive impact ("how, in your opinion, is this supposed to alleviate people's situation?"). The argumentation blends logical details (wage criteria) with a strong emotional appeal (the deteriorating financial situation of Estonian families).
2025-03-17
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The style is critical and insistent, employing rhetorical questions directed at the government to challenge the logic of its policies. The speaker combines logical arguments (the unsustainability of the economic model) with emotional appeals, referencing the climate anxiety affecting young people and the difficulties they face in planning to start a family. The tone is formal and centers on the depth of the issues.
2025-03-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The style is formal and critical, presenting a direct and structured question to the Prime Minister. The appeal is logical and procedural, focusing on a specific deficiency in government action (the lack of NATO authorization) and citing the position of another minister (Ligi) regarding bureaucracy.
2025-01-22
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is serious, pressing, and moral, emphasizing responsibility for the future of children. The speaker balances logical arguments (the protocol's legal competence and mechanisms) with emotional appeals to ensure children have a dignified and safe environment in which to grow. The presentation concludes with a direct plea to colleagues to support the draft resolution.
2024-12-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, composed, and persuasive, balancing logical explanation (detailing processes) with a powerful emotional appeal (the moral obligation to help children). The speaker adopts a conciliatory tone, acknowledging the concerns of colleagues, but concludes with an urgent and idealistic message: "One saved child is one saved world."
2024-12-05
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary session.
The rhetorical style is formal, persuasive, and highly supportive, emphasizing children's welfare as a shared priority. The speaker balances the explanation of legal mechanisms with emotional appeals, stressing that "no voice should go unheard." He/She advises colleagues to use the report compiled by the children themselves as a benchmark for daily decisions.
2024-12-03
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The rhetorical style is formal, serious, and conciliatory, addressing colleagues respectfully and acknowledging their concern for child safety. A balanced approach is employed, combining an emotional appeal (e.g., "One child saved is one world saved") with a logical explanation regarding the actual content of the legislative amendments. The tone is persuasive and underscores the importance of the common objective.
2024-11-21
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
The style is urgent, serious, and critical, particularly regarding the government's inaction and irresponsibility concerning climate issues. It employs both logical arguments (economic risks, pollution statistics) and strong emotional appeals, emphasizing moral obligation and the prevention of suffering for future generations. The address is formal and concludes with a call to consolidate efforts to avert the worst-case scenarios of climate change.
2024-11-20
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The style is formal, yet simultaneously inclusive and persuasive, addressing both colleagues and "dear people of Estonia." A balanced blend of emotional (crises, anxiety, loneliness) and logical (funding structure, autonomy) argumentation is employed. The tone is optimistic, but stresses the urgency and significance of the subject matter.
2024-11-11
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, critical, and forceful, combining scientific and statistical arguments with strong emotional and direct appeals. Polarizing and personal language is directed toward opponents ("pull your heads out of the wombs of foreign women") to emphasize the bill's irrelevance. The speaker stresses the immediate need to address climate change and improve the environmental situation, thereby creating a sense of urgency.
2024-10-23
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The style is formal and respectful, addressing the session's presiding officer and the Minister. The speaker employs direct and supportive language in welcoming the draft bill, which is then followed by a specific and pointed political question concerning security. The overall tone is businesslike and politically focused.
2024-09-25
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary session
The speaker's style is formal, polite, and direct, which is appropriate for posing a question to a minister during a plenary session. The address is formally directed to the presiding officer and the minister. The focus is on a logical and informative appeal designed to elicit clear political answers.
2024-06-12
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session.
The style is critical, demanding, and procedural, posing sharp questions to both the session chair and the committee head. The speaker employs both ethical appeals (lobbying, integrity) and logical arguments (costs, scientific justification), and urges colleagues to honestly admit mistakes and redo what was done incorrectly. The tone is formal, but confrontational in substance.
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is inquisitive, critical, and analytical, focusing on the quality of the bill's proceedings and associated financial risks. Direct questions are employed to verify the presenter's assertions, and skepticism is expressed regarding both the procedure and the cost projections. The tone remains formal and logical, deliberately avoiding emotional appeals.
2024-04-09
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and question-focused, which is typical when posing a question during a plenary session. Logical argumentation is employed, based on specific economic indicators and their comparison, while avoiding emotional or personal appeals.
2024-02-20
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is formal, politely addressing the chair of the session and the presenter. The speech includes a strong emotional appeal, describing the topic as "heartbreaking." The style is concise and focuses on obtaining direct information.
2024-02-13
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The rhetorical style is sharp, incisive, and combative, employing highly emotional language to describe Russia's actions in Ukraine ("an army of Russian orcs raping, mutilating, killing, and kidnapping Ukrainian children"). These emotional appeals are balanced by the use of concrete data and statistics regarding energy issues.
2024-01-16
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The tone is optimistic, supportive, and pragmatic, expressing "joy" regarding the draft legislation. The address is formal and centers on logical arguments, referencing the specifics of the law and expert opinions. Instead of emotional appeals, fact-based references are utilized (e.g., European legal acts, a master's thesis).