Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The primary emphasis is placed on protecting individual rights and civil liberties, alongside maintaining controlled security. The speaker expresses concern regarding the trajectory toward a surveillance society and a police state, stressing the necessity of clarity and transparency as the foundation for decision-making, particularly concerning the potential prohibition of public gatherings. This stance is critical of such expansions and underscores the defense of democratic values, rather than yielding to a hasty, security-driven panic. Consequently, this position advocates for strengthening the protection of rights and democratic procedure, instead of automatically granting additional powers.

It emphasizes the development of the Law Enforcement Act and the topic of the hate speech bill, utilizing precise legal terminology such as an inquiry into the register for holding a public assembly. It demonstrates knowledge of the limits of law and procedure and the ability to pose questions through critical thinking, but lacks presented statistics or empirical data.

A formal and questioning tone; utilizes direct questions (e.g., "On what basis is it possible to prohibit them?"), reflecting a deliberate and slightly critical approach. The text is strictly structured, emotions are limited, and the focus is on seeking arguments and clarity.

No data available.

The criticism centers on plans to expand surveillance powers and broaden existing bans. It stresses that all decisions must be founded on clear principles and transparency. Specific opponents are not mentioned; the tone is moderately critical, promoting the notion that policy choices must not infringe upon citizens' rights.

No data available.

No data available

No data available

It focuses on protecting citizens' rights and freedoms concerning surveillance and restrictions on public gatherings. It is critical of excessive restrictions and emphasizes the necessity of meeting security requirements through democratic, transparent mechanisms that safeguard civil rights.

The primary focus is the updating of the Law Enforcement Act and the context surrounding the hate speech bill; it notes that inertia and falling behind the times are evident in the process, and emphasizes the clarification of transparency and underlying principles. Interest is shown regarding accountability and clear criteria, but direct efforts have not been specifically outlined.