Session Profile: Anti Poolamets
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fourth sitting, plenary session.
2024-10-10
Political Position
The political agenda centers on child protection and preventing convicted individuals from being employed in positions involving children. The speaker is vehemently opposed to a specific provision in the draft bill, calling it the most anti-child measure seen in the last 10 to 20 years. This stance is clearly value-driven and prioritizes the safety of children, warning against legislative setbacks.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates knowledge regarding the Child Protection Act, the establishment of previous registers, and the nuances of criminal law. In particular, the legal distinction between serving a sentence (which impacts subsequent sentencing) and an individual's suitability for working with children is emphasized. This knowledge is utilized to refute the concept of starting with a clean slate concerning certain offenses.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is extremely forceful, combative, and critical, employing strong emotional appeals and warning of catastrophic consequences. Rhetorical questions are utilized to criticize other political parties for failing to raise the issue, and the metaphor "Brezhnev package" is used to describe the dangerous content of the draft bill. The speaker demands the immediate halt of the matter, stressing the urgency of the situation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speeches were delivered during the Riigikogu's plenary session and refer to recent events within the committees and the Riigikogu itself ("the picture scandal"). The speaker is active during the phase of legislative debates, where it is possible to halt or amend bills. There is no data available regarding the frequency of their appearances or other activity patterns outside of the Riigikogu's work.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is aimed at the coalition, which stands accused of including an anti-child provision in the draft legislation and thereby disgracing itself. The criticism is intense and morally charged, calling into question the willingness of other political parties to even address the issue, while exclusively highlighting the role played by the EKRE member. Opponents are being pressured to rectify the situation immediately.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The collaborative style is demanding and confrontational, requiring the rapporteur and the coalition to immediately remove a specific point. Although the purpose of multiple readings in identifying deficiencies is acknowledged, the willingness to compromise on this child protection issue is near zero. Cooperation is viewed only in the context of halting the draft bill or withdrawing a specific provision.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Insufficient data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There is not enough data.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
In the social sector, the focus is on ensuring children's safety and protecting them from sexual offenders or other convicted individuals. The speaker strongly opposes the notion that having served a sentence automatically entitles an individual to work with children (for example, as a coach or in a kindergarten). This position strictly prioritizes safety and deplores any regression in child protection standards.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently on opposing the draft Child Protection Act, particularly the provision concerning the employment of convicted individuals. The speaker opposes the bill and demands its immediate and proper withdrawal now that the flaw has been noticed, in order to prevent the passage of a child-hostile law. The bill is characterized as a "Brezhnev package," containing both necessary and dangerous elements.
2 Speeches Analyzed