Session Profile: Priit Sibul
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
2025-06-11
Political Position
The political position is strongly value-based, standing in opposition to state intervention in the church's canonical law and to disproportionate measures. While the principle of the patient's declaration of will (or advance directive) is supported, the misleading wording and scope of the draft bill are sharply criticized; it should instead focus specifically on the refusal of treatment. The speaker warns that poorly executed legislation can discredit both the state and the government.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in ecclesiastical law and canonical order, referencing their experience as a representative of the church synod and historical contexts (Constantinople). They also possess deep knowledge of healthcare law, particularly concerning the Law of Obligations Act and the medical system's recognition of patient autonomy. They use technical terms such as "canonical law" and "disproportionate package."
5 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The discourse style is formal, analytical, and cautious, focusing on logical arguments regarding legislative competence, proportionality, and clarity. A critical and occasionally questioning tone is employed to emphasize the insufficient predictability of the drafts and the absence of solutions. Emotional appeals are utilized when describing the personal nature of death and faith, stressing that it is impossible to compel the heart through legislation.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker actively participates in plenary sessions during debates on draft legislation, referencing their prior involvement in readings and committee discussions. They propose amendments and request that they be put to a vote, thereby demonstrating active engagement in the legislative process. They are well-versed in the history of the bills' development, noting that the process has spanned five years.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The confrontation is focused on the substantive and procedural quality of the draft legislation, particularly concerning the Church Law, where critics point to the parliament exceeding its competence and replacing genuine substantive problems with merely formal amendments. In the case of the healthcare bill, the drafters are criticized for using a misleading title and including unnecessary, non-medical provisions. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, not personal.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker points to his cooperation with colleague Valdo Randpere during the investigation of the Ministry of the Interior’s action plans, which demonstrates a willingness to conduct internal factional research. He also mentions previous representational experience at the church council (synod) of the Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church connected to Constantinople, showing experience in broad-based organizations. He now addresses his colleagues to seek clarification.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is on national legislation (Laws of the Republic of Estonia, the Riigikogu) and the international/historical context concerning the Orthodox Church and canon law (Patriarch Kirill, Constantinople). There is no local or regional focus within Estonia.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
A significant focus is placed on church autonomy and religious freedom, emphasizing that the church's canonical law cannot be regulated by statute. Another crucial social topic involves end-of-life issues and how society addresses the theme of death, highlighting the necessity of an advance directive so that individuals can die according to their wishes. The speaker observes that society has become alienated from subjects related to death and aging.
5 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on amendments to the Law on Churches and Congregations and the regulation of a patient's end-of-life declaration of intent. The speaker is a critical opponent who seeks to improve the legal clarity and validity of the draft legislation by submitting an amendment proposal to replace the misleading terminology ("end-of-life declaration of intent") with a clearer expression ("declaration of intent to refuse treatment"). He emphasizes that the legislature must anticipate future amendments to any law that is adopted.
5 Speeches Analyzed