Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The speech reveals strong opposition to the bill, which is widely regarded as a rushed, flawed draft that potentially infringes upon fundamental rights. The presentation emphasizes that the bill violates fundamental rights and must be rejected during the first reading, citing the criticism and analysis provided by the Chancellor of Justice. The speaker focuses on safeguarding liberties and data protection, prioritizing the assurance of transparency and control over the unrestricted use of cameras. The primary objective is outright rejection, not a constructive compromise, underscoring the speaker's strong role as a defender of fundamental rights and democracy.

The speaker demonstrates a strong background in law enforcement and data protection: they reference the Chancellor of Justice, specific sections of the Law Enforcement Act, the necessity of threat assessments, and the importance of independent oversight. They pose concrete questions regarding statistics, the size of the official cohort (1300), and the use of data, emphasizing that the creation of profiles and the collection of data are potentially broad and unchecked. Their discussion is centered on the protection of fundamental rights and criticizes the scope of data collection and the lack of proper supervision.

The emphasis is critical, based on emotions and values, and at times accusatory. It employs strong expressions like “flawed bill” and “hypocritical,” asks numerous questions, and immediately highlights the dangers posed to democracy. The tone remains forceful and disruptive throughout the entire discussion, blending the defense of rights with critical rhetoric directed against the draft legislation.

Three speeches delivered simultaneously on June 18, 2025, demonstrate active involvement and sustained criticism of the draft legislation. He refers to the approaching vote and calls for the rejection of the bill’s first reading, citing materials from the court and the Chancellor of Justice, showing persistent and currently active participation in the discussions.

The Main Opposition: Against the draft bill, which infringes fundamental rights and has not been sufficiently thought through. They accuse the government of applying pressure and concealing information, and criticize the excessive scale of data collection. The intensity is high; they assert clear opposition and demand its rejection at the first reading.

The speaker stresses a willingness to cooperate with multiple factions, specifically referencing the Center Party faction's proposal to reject the draft legislation. This demonstrates that the opposition can be unified and bring in other parties for collective resistance, even though the speaker himself is leveling strong criticism and is unwilling to compromise on the bill's adoption before a full review.

No specific regional focus or concentration on the regional level has been highlighted. Not enough data.

There are no references to economic policy, taxes, expenditures, or labor market issues. Not enough data.

In the social context, the focus is on the robust protection of fundamental rights and personal data, and ensuring privacy, rather than cultivating a sense of security. It stresses that questions regarding data recorded by the Police and Border Guard, and the blurring of faces, affect individual liberty and the democratic rule of law, and highlights the absence of threat-based control.

The subject of the draft legislation is the first reading of the Bill to Supplement the Police and Border Guard Act (670 SE). He/She is opposed to the bill, highlighting the absence of a threat assessment, the lack of independent oversight, and the weak regulation of data protection, and calls for its rejection. He/She also mentions the lack of clear statistics and a basis for control, and stresses the issues that arise when officials make inquiries and utilize data.