Agenda Profile: Valdo Randpere
Draft law amending the Criminal Code (452 SE) – First Reading
2024-10-08
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
Political Position
The speaker strongly opposes the draft amendment to the Penal Code (452 SE), which sought to criminalize false statements made by ministers in the Riigikogu, calling the bill "utter nonsense." The position is strongly procedural and legal, emphasizing the protection of the immunity (indemnity) afforded to members of the Riigikogu and the need to avoid conflating American legal systems with Estonian traditions. He/She also points to the contradiction that immunity should, conversely, be extended to ministers when they appear before the Riigikogu.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in lawmaking and constitutional principles by explaining the concept of parliamentary immunity (indemnity). He highlights the technical differences between the Estonian and American legal systems (subpoena, testifying under oath) and analyzes the draft bill's potential impact on ministerial responsibility. This expertise is grounded in identifying both substantive and legal errors within the proposed legislation.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaking style is direct, critical, and at times sarcastic, using expressions such as "Well, look at that mess!" and "complete nonsense." The speaker employs both logical arguments (conflating legal systems, immunity) and personal attacks, criticizing both Kalle, the bill's initiator, and Lauri Laats for his hypocrisy regarding his attendance in the chamber. He uses folksy comparisons, referring to the draft bill as Kört-Pärtel's shirt.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The presenter is active in the Riigikogu chamber, speaking as the committee's rapporteur regarding the rejection of the draft bill. He actively participated in the committee discussions and was present in the chamber during Mart Võrklaev's response, which demonstrates regular attendance at both committee work and plenary sessions.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opponent is Kalle, the initiator of the bill, whose proposal is being criticized as legally incompetent and overly harsh. The criticism is both substantive and procedural, arguing that Kalle’s bill would criminalize ministers too easily and resembles the hate speech law. Furthermore, Lauri Laats’s actions and the lack of consistency between his words and deeds are also being criticized.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker emphasized the successful and unanimous cooperation within the committee, where a consensus decision was reached to reject the draft bill. He/She referenced the arguments of other colleagues (Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Andre Hanimägi) that supported his/her position, demonstrating an openness to cross-party consensus regarding the rejection of the bill.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The speaker indirectly addresses social issues, defending the scope of political free speech in the Riigikogu and criticizing excessive criminalization. He/She compares Bill 452 SE to the earlier debate surrounding the hate speech law, citing concerns about overly broad penal intervention into political activity.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative focus is opposing and rejecting the Draft Act on Amendments to the Penal Code (452 SE) during its first reading. The speaker is a strong opponent of the bill and is serving as the committee's rapporteur to ensure its failure. He emphasizes that the rejection of the draft bill is the unanimous decision of the committee.
1 Speeches Analyzed