Agenda Profile: Anti Poolamets
Draft law amending the Child Protection Act and other laws (427 SE) – second reading
2024-10-10
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fourth sitting, plenary session.
Political Position
The political focus is currently on tightening child protection measures and background checks for individuals working with children. The speaker strongly opposes a provision in the draft bill that would allow individuals who have served a sentence to take up jobs involving children, viewing it as a value-based regression and "complete nonsense." The stance is firm and value-driven, emphasizing that this would be "the most anti-child act" seen in the last 10 to 20 years.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge regarding criminal records and the legal consequences of serving a sentence, distinguishing how serving a sentence impacts court proceedings versus restrictions on employment. The creation of a previous register for accessing data is mentioned, specifically for things like background checks on coaches.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is urgent, cautionary, and combative, employing strong emotional appeals to emphasize the danger inherent in the child protection provision. Figurative expressions such as the "Brezhnev package" (containing both good and bad elements) are used, along with rhetorical questions designed to accuse the coalition of bringing shame upon itself.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The data is limited to two speeches given in the Riigikogu on the same day, focusing on the second reading of the draft Child Protection Act. The speaker is actively involved in the critical monitoring of the legislative process.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is aimed at the coalition, who are accused of including an anti-child provision in the draft bill and "shaming" themselves. There is also a suggestion of passivity among other political parties when it comes to raising the issue, pointing to the exclusive role played by an EKRE member in bringing the problem to light. The criticism is both political and procedural.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker asks the other representatives whether they have raised the issue, referencing the potential isolation that might follow if the topic is brought forward. No willingness to compromise with the coalition is expressed; instead, they demand the immediate removal of the detrimental clause.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is strictly on national legislation, addressing amendments to the Child Protection Act and the procedural processes of the Riigikogu.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The primary social issue is child safety and protection, involving strong opposition to allowing convicted individuals to work with children (e.g., in kindergartens or as coaches). This emphasizes prioritizing children’s safety over the rehabilitation of offenders in sensitive professions.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently centered on the opposition to the Draft Act Amending the Child Protection Act and Other Acts (Bill 427 SE). The speaker is an opponent who demands the swift removal of the harmful provision, emphasizing that multiple readings provide the opportunity to identify and correct the flaws.
2 Speeches Analyzed