Session Profile: Arvo Aller
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
2024-12-03
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the draft bill presented by the Social Affairs Committee, which concerns amendments to the Child Protection Act and the Criminal Records Act. This stance is value-based, emphasizing the necessity of protecting Estonian children from pedophiles and preventing potential loopholes created by the proposed legislation. The speaker positions their party (EKRE) as the only one standing up for the interests of children.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of specific sections and subsections within the Child Protection Act and the Criminal Records Database Act, referencing subsections 10 and 11 of Section 1, and Section 2. They employ technical terminology, focusing on the legal distinction between the terms "prohibition" and "restriction." Furthermore, they refer to a commissioned legal assessment and the processing deadlines (60 days) set by the Social Insurance Board.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is predominantly combative, emotional, and forceful, expressing deep disappointment over the reintroduction of the bill in its identical form. Strong value judgments and moralizing language are employed, referring to child abusers as "crazies" and "pedophiles." The speaker addresses colleagues as "fellow combatants" and concludes with a direct appeal to vote against the law.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively participating in the plenary session of the Riigikogu during the second reading of the bill, repeatedly posing questions and delivering an address. Reference is made to previous discussions and the work of the Social Affairs Committee, demonstrating regular involvement in the legislative process. He also mentions having received the legal opinion in hard copy.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is with the coalition and the Social Affairs Committee, who are being criticized for reintroducing the bill in the same form and ignoring substantive amendments. The criticism is both procedural (the use of a law firm, the committee’s inability to reach a decision) and fundamental (endangering the safety of children). Compromise is ruled out, as the speaker is calling for a vote against the draft legislation.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Cooperation is evident with party colleagues (the Conservative People's Party of Estonia and Riina Solman), who submitted amendments aimed at improving the draft bill. There is a lack of willingness to cooperate with the coalition, as the speaker criticizes their refusal to consider the proposed amendments.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The socio-political focus is on child safety and protecting children from abusers. There is a demand for a lifetime ban on pedophiles working with children, and it is emphasized that children of all ages must grow up in a safe environment. The speaker is strongly opposed to replacing the word "ban" with the word "restriction," seeing this change as a threat to the security of childcare institutions.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on amendments to the Child Protection Act and the Criminal Records Act, to which the speaker is strongly opposed. The goal is to ensure that the law retains a lifelong ban on working with children, not merely a restriction, and the rejection of the draft bill is being sought. He/She emphasizes the need to introduce the amendments proposed by EKRE.
3 Speeches Analyzed