Session Profile: Helir-Valdor Seeder

15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session

2024-05-15

Political Position
The politician is vehemently opposed to the proposed bill, which seeks to regulate denunciation, emphasizing its negative impact on societal morality and Estonia's historical memory. This position is motivated by both value-based arguments (historical trauma) and practical concerns (the growth of bureaucracy). He stresses that the Estonian state and its people absolutely do not need such legislation in the current climate.

1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding Estonian historical memory and the topic of mass deportations, citing as an example the correlation observed in Mulgimaa between the number of informers and the extent of suffering. Furthermore, they are well-versed in the procedural aspects of legislation, criticizing the practice of tying amendments together and the expansion of the scope of directive transposition. The speaker employs technical terminology, such as "transposition of the directive," and references archival materials.

1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker’s style is critical and direct, employing both emotional appeals (references to historical pain and the threat of societal moral decay) and logical arguments (procedural errors, the growth of bureaucracy). The tone towards the coalition is sharp, accusing them of ignoring more substantive contributions and speaking to deaf ears. He/She emphasizes that the final vote represents a "black and white choice."

1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker has been following the debates of the European Parliament candidates on the national public broadcaster and other channels, noting their shared desire to cut down on bureaucracy. He/She also refers to the long history of processing the draft bill through several terms of the Riigikogu.

1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is aimed at the governing coalition, which is accused of ignoring substantive arguments and continuing poor procedural practices. The criticism is intense, focusing both on the substance of the policy (moral decay) and procedural issues (conflict with the Rules of Procedure Act). Compromise is ruled out in the final vote, as the faction will vote against the bill.

1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker stresses the Isamaa parliamentary group's unified opposition to the draft legislation. He points to Isamaa's previous actions during the last parliamentary session, where the faction, while a member of the ruling coalition, successfully delayed the bill's proceedings, demonstrating a willingness to leverage internal factional influence.

1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The speaker highlights Mulgimaa, stressing the region’s historical ties to deportations and denunciation, in order to illustrate the potential negative impact of the draft bill. Mulgimaa is cited as the area in Estonia that suffered the most during the deportations.

1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
The politician is vehemently opposed to the growth of bureaucracy, criticizing the draft legislation for increasing expenditures and placing an undue burden on businesses and local municipalities. He supports the overall objective of cutting red tape, noting that the new law runs counter to the desired direction.

1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The main social theme is the historically painful experience of denunciation and its connection to the deportations, warning against the danger of the decay of public morality. He emphasizes that in Estonia's historical memory, denunciation is a deeply painful and fateful experience.

1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The primary legislative focus is opposition to a draft bill that establishes an additional reporting mechanism and increases bureaucracy. The speaker is an active opponent, criticizing both the substance of the bill (the expanded transposition of the directive) and procedural irregularity (the bundling of amendments contrary to the Rules of Procedure Act).

1 Speeches Analyzed