Agenda Profile: Vadim Belobrovtsev

Re-examination of the Act Amending the Act on Churches and Religious Communities (570 UA) Not Proclaimed by the President of the Republic

2025-09-17

15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.

Political Position
The speaker is vehemently opposed to the adoption of the draft amendment to the Churches and Congregations Act (570 UA) in its unamended form, deeming it unconstitutional and "legally flawed." This political stance is strongly policy- and value-based, emphasizing the necessity of respecting the President's competence and safeguarding religious freedom. The speaker sharply criticizes the unconstructive approach taken by the bill's initiators, which has devolved the situation into something "ridiculous" and "a farce."

3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates a strong command of constitutional law and legislative procedure, referencing the grounds for the president's refusal to promulgate and the role of the Supreme Court. The expertise is based on distinguishing between substantive and cosmetic changes, and the opinions of the president's advisor and anonymous state officials regarding the failure of the draft bill are cited. The main topic on which the author shows repeated awareness is the infringement of religious freedom.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker employs a sharply critical and combative rhetorical style, utilizing strong negative assessments such as "ridiculous," "a farce," and "the dustbin of history." The appeal is primarily logical and procedural, centering on the unconstitutionality of the proposed bill and the incompetence of its initiators. Although the speech is formal, it carries an emotional charge intended to underscore the gravity of the situation and the futility of the opponents' actions.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is highly active specifically in the discussions concerning this particular draft law, noting that they have addressed this topic in the Riigikogu hall several times already. The pattern of activity demonstrates participation both in the main chamber and in the work of the committees, where amendments have been submitted. All three speeches occurred on the same date, which suggests intensive involvement in the final debate on the bill.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary opposition consists of the coalition parties together with the Social Democrats, who are being criticized for voting down the Center Party's substantive amendment proposals. The criticism is both procedural and political, accusing the opponents of being unconstructive and failing to trust the president's competence by sending the draft bill back for the third time in an unchanged form. The possibility of compromise has been ruled out due to the opponents' actions, as they refused to accept the substantive amendments.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker emphasizes that the Centre Party attempted to approach the matter constructively, putting forth substantive amendments that could have eliminated the constitutional conflicts. Although cooperation was offered, the speaker notes that the coalition parties rejected these proposals, which demonstrates a readiness to compromise only on the condition of substantive improvements.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data

3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data

3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker focuses heavily on the issue of religious freedom, arguing that the bill infringes upon this freedom and is therefore unconstitutional. This is the sole social issue addressed, and it is presented as the primary reason for rejecting the draft legislation.

3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative focus is preventing the adoption of the Act amending the Churches and Congregations Act (570 UA). The speaker positions themselves as a strong opponent of the bill, demanding that it be sent to the "dustbin of history" or substantively changed, rather than merely receiving cosmetic fixes. The Centre Party has submitted substantive amendments.

3 Speeches Analyzed