Session Profile: Juku-Kalle Raid
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
2024-01-16
Political Position
The political position centers on strong opposition to Soviet symbolism and monuments of Soviet power, demanding their swift removal from public spaces. This stance is value-based, emphasizing that these objects are idols, not grave markers, which commemorated the occupation. A solution is supported where the monuments are moved to a museum to serve as history lessons, reminding us of the horrors. The position is firm and uncompromising regarding their removal.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates a thorough knowledge of the history of Soviet monuments in Estonia, referencing the relocation of the Narva tank, the Bronze Night, and specific historical figures (Aili Jõgi). The preferred solution involves preserving these historical objects in a museum setting (such as Maarjamäe) to serve as a reminder of the horrific past. Personal memories (the 1986 incident) are used to underscore the historical context.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is passionate, direct, and at times combative, utilizing strong emotional appeals and historical narratives (the story of Aili Jõgi). Opponents' arguments (e.g., the Social Democrats' claim of cohesion) are labeled as ridiculous and arbitrary. The speaker uses powerful terminology like "graven image" and emphasizes the immediate urgency of the solution.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker was active during the plenary session on January 16, 2024, repeatedly intervening in the debate to emphasize the nature of the monument's red symbolism. This pattern of activity indicates a readiness to repeatedly raise both procedural and substantive issues.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main criticism is leveled against the Social Democrats, who suggested the Soviet monument could play a role in creating social cohesion—a role the speaker considered absolutely arbitrary and ridiculous. Procedurally, the bill's initiator (Jaak Valge) is criticized for submitting a simplistic and insufficiently considered proposal that does not resolve the monument’s future fate.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker observes a broad consensus regarding the goal of relocating the monument, noting that "the entire Riigikogu is actually of one mind," although there are disagreements over the methods. On this specific issue, support is voiced for EKRE's stance ("I am for EKRE today"), but they refuse to go along with the arguments of the Social Democrats.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is at the national level on addressing the legacy and symbols of the Soviet occupation. Specific Estonian locations are mentioned, such as Narva (the tank), Maarjamäe (the museum), and Keila, linking them to historical events.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social theme is historical memory, national identity, and the rejection of occupation symbols. The speaker categorically rejects the assertion that 'red monuments' could increase societal cohesion.
4 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the procedure for relocating historical symbols and the thoroughness of that procedure. The speaker criticizes the proposal for its one-dimensional nature and demands that the legislator clearly define the monument's future fate (transfer to a museum) to avoid incomplete solutions.
4 Speeches Analyzed