Taro did not provide a clear answer in an interview with ERR as to why the threat threshold when it comes to banning public gatherings needed to be lowered.

According to the bill submitted by the Ministry of the Interior for its approval rounds, imposing a prohibition on being present at a large public gathering would be viable, if there were reason to believe that a significant disturbance of public order could occur.

This would be the case even if the event were not categorized as being a heightened threat; a new "significant threat" category would be introduced.

The bill to amend the Law Enforcement Act has been sent by the Ministry of the Interior for inter-departmental coordination rounds with stakeholders; it is primarily aimed at combating domestic violence. However, the amendment is such that it allows for imposing a ban on being present at public gatherings. How are these two things connected?

As I understand it, the purpose of this bill is to act more effectively in heading off domestic violence. At present, the ban on being present can only be imposed for up to 12 hours and in cases of a heightened threat, which essentially means that measures can only be taken when a person's life is already imperiled — which in some cases may be somewhat too late. The main intent of the amendment is to extend the maximum duration of the ban to 72 hours and to introduce the concept of a "significant threat," so that police do not have to wait until someone picks up an axe or knife and starts making threatening movements toward another person; they can intervene earlier. That seems to have been feedback from law enforcement officers.

As for the prohibition on being present at large gatherings, in fact, this has already been applied recently in connection with African swine fever (ASF). This was a similar case where the threat level might not yet have been such that it could be deemed a heightened threat. Essentially, the idea is to strengthen preventive security and to allow more flexible responses to various types of threat scenarios. That is the intent at least. Did you know that this provision concerning public gatherings was also included in the bill, or did that come somewhat as a surprise?

The sentence in the explanatory memorandum… I just double-checked that. It outlines the existing situation rather than the planned changes. That's the position of those who authored the bill, that they wrote it with domestic violence in mind. But I acknowledge that indeed various people might interpret the same text in different ways, and that's exactly why we have a coordination round. I would remind you that this is only the first coordination round, in which various ministries and people provide their feedback. If there are any ambiguities, they usually come up during that process. In such cases, we make corrections and send it for a second coordination round before it goes to the government, as is customary.

But what exactly is a "significant threat"? And how will the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) leaders decide that one public gathering poses a significant threat and another does not — how will that work out in practice?

I think this will always be based on a risk assessment. In law enforcement, we already have the concept of a risk assessment, and many decisions and activities get planned on that basis. It means that someone has analyzed the situation and taken various criteria into account. In the context of this draft, this is not even about the prefect being the only one to decide — in domestic violence cases, it is important that a representative of the prefect can also make such decisions operationally. Especially on domestic violence, as such incidents can be acute, for example on a Friday evening or over the weekend, when the prefect may not be at work.

For this reason, it is necessary to add a clause allowing the prefect to designate a representative who can make the decision when the prefect is unavailable. In domestic violence cases, things are quite clear — a quick response is needed, the situation is dire, and the police must have the ability to remove the perpetrator and protect the victims. But returning to public gatherings — this clearly gives the police additional powers to assess whether something might happen at a planned event or not.

And the threshold is now lower. Where previously a heightened threat had to exist, now this "significant threat" allows the police to intervene in situations where the threat is not yet heightened but where the consequences for public order could be serious. This essentially gives the PPA very broad powers of discretion over gatherings, and that's not really a good thing...

Let me reiterate. I think there's simply a misunderstanding of what the text actually states. I've spoken with the authors of the draft and clarified this. They told me that no additional qualitative change can arise from it. The same prohibitions on being present — like those imposed during the African swine fever outbreak — were not actually established by the police but by the Agriculture and Food Board (PTA). Those also stemmed from situations where nothing had yet happened directly, but there was an elevated risk, meaning that gatherings near an outbreak site should not be held.

I'll provide an example from April 2007, around the time of the Bronze Soldier incident, when the situation completely got out of hand. Part of the neighboring area was already being looted, and only then did the PPA begin enforcing a prohibition on being present, and detained people. It may not always make sense to let half the city be looted or to allow a disease to spread from an outbreak site.

I'll give another example — when the PPA decided to ban a pro-Palestine demonstration in Tartu, and the later Supreme Court ruling said the PPA had no right to do that, and that when banning a public gathering, the police must clearly state what the risks are — which they did not do that time. It seems to me that the idea of the current amendment is precisely to give the police more tools to justify such decisions.

I can't really comment on that. This draft is definitely not connected to that particular case. And as I said, the focus of this draft is combating domestic violence — nothing more.

Yet paragraph 44 adds the scenario of a significant threat. Currently, it only includes a heightened threat.

Yes. And that is related to the task of combating domestic violence. There's no other underlying intent.

So let's also talk about domestic violence. This is undoubtedly an important issue. What happens to the perpetrator who is, for example, prohibited from being at home? Are they sent to a detention facility, or do they have to find a place themselves where they will stay away, for up to 72 hours?

Here too, the authority imposing the prohibition must weigh the consequences. If we imagine that it's cold outside — minus 20 degrees, or even less… On one hand, undoubtedly, the person subject to the ban is the aggressive party, and the ban results from their own actions — usually repeated actions. These are typically regular PPA "clients," whose situations the PPA are called to resolve. It's not just a one-off occurrence. So the PPA must assess that while the ban is imposed, it still has to be ensured that the perpetrator survives afterward — that they are not left on the street. Often alcohol is involved as well. In such cases, the person is taken to sober up. But it's a matter of judgment. I don't think we're going to start building separate hotels for these people.

In Georgia, local elections were held, when protests broke out in the country afterward, but the authorities are using these protests — some of which are violent — to suppress the opposition. If our police are also granted the right to reassess public gatherings, and even when there is no heightened threat but they deem there to be a significant threat — though we don't know what that means in substance — what will happen to demonstrations in Estonia if such powers are given to the PPA?

I have said several times that this is a bill for dealing with domestic violence. I have a feeling that someone has developed a narrative in their head that this draft was created for some other purpose. I once again confirm that it was not.

The possibility of imposing prohibitions on being present at gatherings already exists, and was used just recently. And this definitely was not the aim of this bill. If any ambiguity does emerge during the coordination process, that's precisely what the coordination round is there for, and then we'll make our corrections. But I think this is simply a misunderstanding and misinterpretation at the moment.

--

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