Session Profile: Eero Merilind
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
2024-12-03
Political Position
Translation is missing: Poliitiline positsioon on tugevalt suunatud laste turvalisuse tagamisele ja kehtiva seaduseelnõu kaitsmisele, rõhutades, et pedofiilidele ei teki lastega töötamise võimalust. Seisukoht on poliitikapõhine ja keskendub seaduse regulatsiooni korrektsusele ning läbipaistvusele. Kõneleja lükkab jõuliselt tagasi vastaspoole väited, et eelnõu legaliseeriks pedofiilia.
24 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates thorough knowledge of the procedures for processing amendments to the Child Protection Act and the legal details, referring to the provisions of § 145 of the Penal Code (KarS) and § 20 of the Child Protection Act (LasteKS). To confirm the expertise and overcome difficulties in interpretation, a separate legal opinion was commissioned from the law firm Ellex Raidla. The knowledge also covers the specifics of criminal record inquiries and the archiving of data.
24 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
Translation is missing: Retooriline stiil on formaalne, korduv ja kaitsval toonil, eriti seoses korduvate küsimustega pedofiilia legaliseerimise kohta ("Tuletan veel kord meelde..."). Kõneleja tugineb loogilistele argumentidele, viidates juriidilistele sätetele, komisjoni konsensusele ja välisele eksperthinnangule, esinedes peamiselt menetluse selgitajana.
24 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Patterns of activity indicate intensive work within the bill's leading committee, including the discussion of amendments and the setting of procedural deadlines. Following the suspension of the previous reading, the speaker personally took the initiative to commission a legal assessment (November 1st) to ensure certainty regarding the interpretation of the law.
24 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponents are Riina Solman and the EKRE faction, whose amendments were rejected by the leading committee. Criticism was directed at their claims regarding the possibility of legalizing pedophilia, assertions which the speaker repeatedly and forcefully refuted. Also rejected were proposals that would have created an unjustified administrative burden (e.g., the obligation to request an assessment from the prosecutor’s office).
24 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The cooperation style was aimed at finding consensus within the steering committee and with the ministries (the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Justice), whose explanations and assessments were relied upon. The speaker emphasizes that the commission reached its conclusions even without reviewing the law firm's assessment. There was no willingness to compromise regarding those proposed amendments that would have distorted the objective of the draft legislation.
24 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
No data available.
24 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There are no economic standpoints, apart from a reference to the need to avoid undue administrative burden, which was made when the proposal to change the Social Insurance Board’s duty to involve (or consult) into a mandatory obligation was rejected.
24 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social issue is the safety of children and their protection from perpetrators of sexual crimes, emphasizing a lifelong ban on pedophiles working with children. This stance is strongly protective, citing Estonia's constitutional and international obligation to safeguard children. It was separately mentioned that in cases of sexual harassment, rehabilitation is not possible.
24 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on finalizing the second reading and preparing for the third reading of the draft Act amending the Child Protection Act and other related legislation. The objective is to clarify the procedure for reassessing restrictions on working with children, thereby ensuring the clarity and transparency of the process without compromising child safety. The speaker is the lead rapporteur and sponsor of the draft Act.
24 Speeches Analyzed