Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The speaker is strongly opposed to draft law 570 UA in its second reading; they emphasize that the bill violates three constitutional principles: freedom of religion, freedom of association, and proportionality. They argue that existing instruments within criminal law are sufficient to address security threats and see no necessity in creating a new legal offense. They highlight that the Center Party's amendment would preclude the execution of decisions or instructions originating abroad if those actions threaten national security or the constitutional order. They emphasize the need to strengthen the protection of constitutional legislation and to maintain special protection for the rights of religious associations compared to political parties.

He/She highlights references in Supreme Court rulings concerning foreign influence operations, disinformation, and the creation of an information space, and emphasizes that the existing sections of the Penal Code serve as a sufficient mechanism for addressing these threats. He/She refers to the principle that religious associations enjoy stronger constitutional protection than other types of associations, and that ensuring national security does not necessitate the exceptional restriction of religious associations. He/She demonstrates a clear grasp of constitutional rights, supported by articulate references to national defense legislation and case law.

The emphasis is formal, logical, and well-reasoned; it utilizes questions, examples, and the president's positions to highlight a potential logical flaw (or obsession with logic) and the crucial importance of constitutionality. The text is structured and fact-based, combining the defense of rights with a pragmatic description of the current agenda. It employs concepts such as freedom of religion, freedom of association, and proportionality to construct a strong moral and legal narrative.

Two speeches delivered on the same day, 2025-06-11; referring to the amendments proposed by the committee and their future consideration during the plenary session. It is stressed that the Centre Party's amendment may help prevent the emergence of unconstitutionality, and the speaker requests for the third time that the discussion be continued in a timely and relevant manner. The necessity of bringing the matter to a full plenary vote is mentioned, and the focus of the parliamentary function and the direction of the agenda items are highlighted.

It is evident from the speeches that the primary opposition is directed against the draft bill; the ruling working group and the cosmetic amendments are symbolically criticized, with claims that they fail to resolve the constitutional conflict. Reference is made to the president's conclusions regarding the assurance of legal clarity, and it is emphasized that the draft bill does not align with security requirements and the demands placed upon the state order. The need for constitutional correction and the adoption of alternative provisions is intensely highlighted.

The text emphasizes cooperation between the Centre Party's proposals and the Legal Committee, and calls for broad-based support. It mentions that the proposed amendments are acceptable and could ensure constitutional compliance; it shows a readiness for dialogue and compromise in order to advance the draft bill within the planned framework. The necessity of joint action and finding consensus-based solutions is highlighted.

Insufficient data

Insufficient data

It emphasizes the protection of freedom of religion and the rights of religious associations, and stresses that the constitution maintains strong protection for religious associations compared to political parties. It highlights the potential danger when the rights of a religious association are being restricted or when the responsibility of the local community expands disproportionately. In this regard, it addresses the threats involved in balancing both freedoms and security.

The main priorities are ensuring the constitutionality of the draft bill and advancing it through the necessary procedures. [The speaker/party] submits the Center Party’s amendment proposal, which precludes the enforcement of foreign decisions if they pose a threat to security or the constitutional order. It is noted that the Legal Affairs Committee has supported these amendments, and the plan is to proceed with them again during the plenary vote. [The speaker/party] stresses the necessity of avoiding unconstitutional challenges and guaranteeing the law's validity.