Just yesterday on social media you defended the plan to criminalize following terrorist propaganda. This morning you changed your mind. What happened? Why did you change your position?

I think yesterday I was rather explaining what this legislative intent plan (VTK) contains and what it doesn't. It was never our intention to introduce or create any sort of thought control or "thought police." But today we reached the conclusion that this VTK is not relevant at this moment. That is, in a way, the fate of many VTKs. Not every VTK becomes a bill. We're not talking about a concrete proposal ready to go to the government, but rather about formulating a problem and exploring different solutions. Nothing overly dramatic has happened here. Sometimes the feedback shows that it wasn't a good plan and then you need to rewind and rethink.

What feedback convinced you? Was it pressure from within your own party? Did your coalition partner, the Reform Party, suggest that it wasn't wise to move forward? Or was it simply public pressure — experts and other commentators who persuaded you with their arguments?

Well, to be frank, in the few days the VTK has been out, there hasn't been time for a broad debate. We looked at the overall reactions, what experts had written and how they understood it. And what became clear was that if experts don't interpret the purpose in the same way the authors intended and if they raise a number of valid questions about legal clarity, room for interpretation and so on, then based on that analysis it seemed to me the right move was to take a step back.

This is not the first time you've changed course as a politician. For example, when criticism of automatic number plate recognition cameras emerged — reported by journalist Madis Hindre in Eesti Ekspress — at first you defended the officials, saying the system worked. But as critical voices grew louder, you hit the brakes and stopped defending the idea. What have you learned as a politician from these two cases?

I'm sorry, but I have to correct you there. The way you framed the question isn't accurate. In the case of the number plate cameras, I said from the start: let's wait for expert opinions, let's see what specialists say, what their analysis is. And once we reached the stage where experts, in a joint Riigikogu committee session, raised several important points, then the decision was made. It wasn't some sudden 180-degree turn. From the beginning, the message was: listen to experts and then decide. The same principle applies with this and every VTK. It is put out for public discussion. There is no other format before drafting a bill than publishing a VTK. That's how we collect feedback. And if we see that it doesn't work, that there are too many problems, then we pull it back and reconsider how to address the issue.

In all of these stories, it's often said that officials have too much influence. That if an official's tool is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. Looking at the field of officials or the Internal Security Service, the problem may be real, but perhaps the hammer is not the right tool — maybe another one is needed?

That's not impossible. It's a good metaphor. But I'd be careful about judgments like whether officials get too much of a say. My question is: are officials allowed to think or should we impose thought control on officials, dictating what they may and may not think? Their role is to analyze problems — especially in lawmaking — inform us and propose possible solutions. We must allow people to do their jobs. If officials no longer think or express any positions, then we won't get meaningful input from experts at all.

In this case you listened to officials and experts and decided that if this VTK had moved forward and eventually become a bill, Estonia would not have introduced thought control or punished attitudes, as legal experts warned?

That was never the goal. In fact, during the VTK briefing I explicitly pointed out that we will not go down the path of a certain neighboring country and will not give the impression we are moving in that direction. The criticism we've received now suggests we were trying to do just that. But that was never the plan. Still, it was a useful debate and a good learning experience.

At the same time, the problem you presented — something posing a security risk to people in Estonia but not punishable under current law — remains. If agencies see that certain ideas or actions could lead to unacceptable outcomes for society, that threat is still there. The question now is: might the plan move forward in some form, with clearer legal boundaries and in proportion to freedom of thought and expression? Do you think that's possible?

At this point, we cannot move forward with this VTK in its current form, because the debate has shifted away from the initial problem statement. The fact that the terrorism threat in Estonia is currently low does not mean it's nonexistent or that there is no potential or risk of radicalization in certain circles. Security agencies will continue working to keep the terrorism threat low. If they come up with new proposals, we can discuss them, but we must carefully weigh every measure we adopt to ensure it remains proportional to freedom of thought and expression and does not excessively infringe constitutional rights. I think that work must continue.

Could you give an example where regulation really does need to be developed further? What kinds of unwanted developments in Estonian society should be held back, but currently cannot be punished?

A couple of cases have been reported in the media, also in connection with this VTK. One was about 10 years ago, when a man went to Syria to fight for a terrorist group. As far as I know, he disappeared there. Some people who financed his trip were prosecuted. Another case is quite recent. A man who had long been on law enforcement's radar — first for child pornography, then for radicalization — was detained at the airport on his way to the Middle East with certain plans. That ended with him deciding to act on his agenda and he attacked a prison officer, causing life-threatening injuries. Luckily no one died, but it was a very close call. And in that case, he couldn't be prosecuted for collecting, possessing or sharing extremist materials.

Finally, Igor Taro: Some say the interior minister should take responsibility in this situation. Have you considered stepping down? Do you see this as serious enough to say you cannot continue as minister or does the criticism not resonate with you?

Responsibility has already been taken by admitting the mistake and withdrawing the VTK. I must ask again: what kind of society would we have if we imposed thought control on officials or ministers, so that no proposal could ever even be put on the table for discussion without bringing immediate and fatal consequences? I think we should still have the freedom to debate issues openly, without imposing thought control on anyone.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!