Agenda Profile: Mart Maastik
Inquiry regarding elementary school textbooks (no. 672)
2025-01-27
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the government’s education policy and the content of the curricula, especially concerning issues of gender identity. The speaker frames the issue in terms of values, calling the current direction "pure ideology" and "utter nonsense," which is being driven by the current coalition. They demand that textbooks be mandatory and that their content be based on political consensus, rather than the free choice of the teacher.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge of the structure of education policy (national curriculum, peer review) and gender identity terminology, citing examples of 72 genders (e.g., Agenderflux, Ambonec). In presenting this knowledge, comparisons and analogies are employed (quacks, the climate change consensus, Soviet maize cultivation) to criticize the politically commissioned "scientific consensus."
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is highly combative, emotional, and urgent. It expresses sorrow and labels the subject matter as "absurdity" and something that has "gone completely mad." The text employs strong moral frameworks and historical analogies (such as Soviet-era corn cultivation and Narva history lessons) to underscore the inherent danger of the ideology. Furthermore, the speaker utilizes direct quotes from the minister to highlight existing contradictions.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is active in Riigikogu debates, participating in the interpellation discussion both by posing questions and delivering a longer address, for which they requested additional time. This pattern of activity is focused on a specific legislative inquiry (Interpellation No. 672) and the associated ideological criticism.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is directed against the current coalition and the Minister of Education, who are accused of imposing "pure ideology" through school curricula. The criticism is intense and highly ideological, calling into question both the scientific consensus and the political mandate, and suggesting that this kind of "nonsense" would not occur under a different coalition.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker refers to colleagues who share similar views (e.g., Anti Poolamets) and addresses the members of the Riigikogu as "Dear colleagues." There are no indications of openness to compromise or cross-party cooperation regarding government policy.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is primarily on the national level (the Estonian state) and the international level (ideological trends in Western Europe, the USA, Sweden, and the WHO). A specific regional example highlighted is the problems associated with teaching history in Narva and in Russian-language schools.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There are no economic standpoints; the text only mentions criticism directed at the funding of scientists, suggesting this could lead to the creation of content tailored to a political agenda, thus pointing to the connection between funding and ideology.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Among social issues, the main point of contention is the opposition to promoting gender identity diversity in schools, which is viewed as "pseudoscience" and a "fad" that is psychologically harmful to children. It is stressed that psychological issues should be handled by doctors and medical professionals, not the education system, and warnings are issued against drastic sex-reassignment surgeries.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is directed toward revising the content of education and curricula, requiring mandatory textbooks and a politically consensual agreement regarding the content of teaching materials. The goal is to prevent ideological indoctrination in schools.
3 Speeches Analyzed