Agenda Profile: Urmas Reinsalu
Draft law amending the Police and Border Guard Act (670 SE) – first reading
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is strongly value-based and opposes Draft Bill 670 SE, as it fundamentally infringes upon constitutional rights, particularly the inviolability of private life and confidentiality. The speaker demands a clear constitutional assessment from the government and views the current developments in the area of fundamental rights as a regression. He/She criticizes the draft bill as an attempt to retroactively legalize broad surveillance without substantive legal merit.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates profound expertise in the field of constitutional law and fundamental rights, referencing Article 26 of the Constitution, the proportionality test, and rulings by the German Federal Constitutional Court concerning the right to confidentiality. He/She employs technical legal terminology, criticizing the ambiguity of the draft law’s definitions, particularly concerning the concept of "misconduct." The expertise is focused on legal-theoretical and constitutional analysis.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is formal, critical, and insistent, focusing on logical and legal arguments, while referencing German constitutional culture as a model. The speaker adopts a cautionary tone, diagnosing the parliament's activity as playing the role of a "tank operator," and stressing that the draft bill would not withstand criticism "even for a second in a normal constitutional culture." He also uses examples verging on the grotesque (the car tax) to demonstrate the sweeping scope of the legislation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively participating in the legislative process (during the first reading of the draft bill), submitting both questions to the bill’s authors and a lengthy, substantive rebuttal. He also references topics being debated concurrently, such as the "Superbase" and the "Money Laundering Base," demonstrating a link to ongoing parliamentary discussions. He points out that the bill caught the public by surprise, and the cameras were halted to placate the media.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main opposition is directed against the government and the agencies that submitted a draft bill lacking substantive quality, attempting to retroactively legalize widespread surveillance. The speaker criticizes the parliament's passivity and accuses politicians of misleading the public. The criticism is procedural and political, demanding the rejection of the bill.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The proponent's stance is demanding and uncompromising regarding this draft bill, proposing its rejection because it does not meet the standards of constitutional culture. He demands that the government present a clear and convincing analysis that includes both constitutionality and legal-theoretical scrutiny. Although he expresses respect for the authors of the draft bill, he sees no alternative to rejecting the current text.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is distinctly national, addressing the fundamental rights and the inviolability of private life of all Estonian people. The international perspective is utilized as a comparative legal theory, referencing precedents set by the German Federal Constitutional Court and the legislation of North Rhine-Westphalia, in order to support the protection of the right to confidentiality.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The economic concerns are implicit, expressing worry that license plate recognition cameras could be used for fiscal surveillance. He/She raises the question, for instance, of whether the definition of "violation" would permit the use of cameras to detect the non-payment of car tax, referencing earlier proposals made by motor insurance companies.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The central social theme revolves around the balance between civil liberties and security, where the speaker strongly defends the privacy of individuals and the right to confidentiality against state surveillance. They warn against the erosion of fundamental rights and demand that surveillance limitations be proportional and primarily aimed at curbing serious crime. They emphasize the importance of negative liberty (the right to be unobserved).
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus centers on opposing and rejecting Bill 670 SE (the Draft Act to Supplement the Police and Border Guard Act). The speaker is an active opponent, insisting that Parliament must first address the definition of fundamental rights, and that all future legislation must be legally sound and constitutional. They view the bill as posing a threat to data mining and the operation of AI systems.
2 Speeches Analyzed