Happy 2010!

Here is a short video of impressions from the New Year:

Next week: Human Rights Week at PÖFF

This year’s PÖFF human rights programme includes great documentaries and films as well as exciting discussions.

EU’s president and foreign minister

Last week, relatively unknown Herman van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton were chosen by the EU’s Heads of State over dinner as the EU’s president and foreign minister, respectively. Or that’s how the media story is spun.

In reality, the media and most commentators have got it wrong. The EU has worked exactly how it is supposed to work, and having flashier or more popular (or populist) persons chosen would have been the exception, not the way things worked out. The fact is that Lisbon treaty did not change all that much, it was evolutinary, rather than revolutionary development. Even when it was still called the Constitutional Treaty, it was never intended to usher in a new era of a different EU. Things that needed fixing were fixed and fine-tuned and the world will not be much different from 1 December 2009. With Lisbon there has been an added layer to the already existing foundation, nothing more.

I think that van Rompuy and Lady Ashton are perfect because they are not so well known. The EU is not about simplistic populist slogans or strong figureheads, but it is about concensus and being able to make the multi-layered and multi-level governance system work. And for that those two are good candidates.

The EU is not, and does not work like a state. That’s why the EU’s “president” (actually the President of the European Council) and “foreign minister” (actually the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) are not like presidents or foreign ministers of countries. It is also why the European Parliament is not like state parliament or why decision-making process is completely different of that of a state. However, this complexity is not easy to explain.

Who to vote for?

I have already voted at the upcoming local government elections in Estonia, but I have been thinking about my choice (or rather lack of good choices). Here is my take on the Estonian politicial party landscape:

1. Keskerakond (Centre Party): They are dishonest and populist to the extreme. Although they have certain redeeming features in what they want to achieve, I could not vote for them because of how they behave in politics.

2. Reformierakond (Reform Party): I have been disappointed with them in recent years. In their hunt for popularity they have let go of their principles and become more populist than I would have expected. If you have to change your principles in order to get more votes, then what point is there to having power if you cannot do what you would want? They have disappointed me with many things, but mostly with dropping their fight to end compulsory military service. They have changed from a less popular party that got things done to more popular party that gets nothing substantial done.

3. Isamaa ja Res Publica Liit (Pro Patria and Res Publica Union): They are simply too conservative, nationalistic and sometimes even fascist to appeal to me. I cannot consider voting for them until they become less radical.

4. Sotsiaaldemokraatlik Partei (Social Democrat Party): They lack consistent ideology that would offer a specific plan for Estonia. They have locked themselves to oppositionary thinking and rather than coming up with new and interesting ideas, they just rehash the same old stuff. They are economically not credible and their leadership is completely uncharismatic.

5. Erakond Eestimaa Rohelised (Greens): It is just a big mess, not a party. They are not organised, which means they will remain marginal. I have severe issues with several people who belong to that party.

6. Rahvaliit (People’s Union): Like Centre Party Light, but with no clout or support. Politically a lame duck, deservedly. Hopefully these elections will end their misery and they will finally disintegrate completely.

I made the choice reluctantly by voting for the party I thought might be least capable of completely screwing up, but for a long time there has not been anyone to really vote for.

Catching internet trolls

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.  John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

In the memokraat blog, the Short Guide to Catching Trolls (Lühike trolliküti käsiraamat ehk ettepanekud online diskussioonitehnoloogia arendamiseks Eestis) was posted discussing the issue of trolling at the reader comment sections of Estonian online news media sites. I briefly participated in the debate, but now will provide here an overview of some issues and questions that I have been thinking about since then.

1. Defining the troll. The Guide defines troll as someone who posts insulting comments in an online environment with the purpose of provoking others and disturb the discussion. What constitutes an insult, provocation or disturbance is subjective to a certain level and depends on the cultural and social background of a person. My comments for the Guide as posted in the comment thread could be considered trolling as at least some people thought that part of my arguments were arrogant (when I suggested that people who are so thin-skinned that they could not tolerate hostile commentary should not read it), the style I write and express my opinions is usually a little provocational and some people might think that it disturbed the discussion. Thus in a wide reading of the definition I am a troll and so is nearly anyone who does not conform to a certain subjective criteria defined by the owner of the site. The banning of such trolls as myself results in discussions that are perhaps non-insulting and uncontroversial, but at the same time also rather valueless in terms of expanding the scope of discussion and bringing in alternative views.

2. Defining the problems? The trollhunters claim that the problems are caused by the technology used for commenting at Estonian online news sites. They claim the technology used is to blame for the exclusion of certain other people (who in a bizarre twist are claimed to be unable to freely use their freedom of speech because they are afraid of others also using it but critically), that this leads to radicalisation of public opinion and intolerance and distorts public opinion. All these claims lack evidence, studies or any research: we are expected to accept these premises as self-evident, when they are actually not.

The biggest unsupported assumption the authors of the Guide make* is that the root of all evil is anonymous commenting, which may or may not be the case.

3. Freedom of speech in an online setting. It is true that freedom of speech is not absolute and the exercise of it also requires responsibility for one’s opinions. However, for acts that bring criminal liability there already is a possibility to identify almost anyone online so the anonymity is only superficial. Thus it is possible at least in theory to make people accountable for their words also now.

50 years ago internet did not exist and therefore the human rights standards we have need to be adopted to the internet era. Certain principles remain the same, but the internet might change the content of certain rights subtantially, including freedom of speech. Offline analogies do not always work in the global unregulated internet with low barriers to entry.

4. Self-regulation is not always best when dealing with human rights issues. The trollhunters state that the least they want is state intervention or regulation. They propose a system of self-regulation, whereby the parties who control the commentary space make an agreement which is then adopted and implemented. In my mind it is dangerous when private entities make deals that involve limits to freedom of speech, because questions of accountability and transparency rise. I also believe that this might be even worse than state regulation, because the state is much more bound by international human rights obligations. So in cases that involve human rights I think it is preferential to have state regulation, rather than allow for private parties who control substantial public discussion space to make their own agreements to limit certain aspects of online activities. In many many spheres self-regulation is possible and works very well, but I am not sure if this is it.

—

In general terms there is another fundamental point why I think any regulation of online commentary space is not beneficial. Net neutrality means that content providers should not restrict specific parts of the internet depending on subjective criteria. The internet has flourished partly because of the freedom it provides and the abscence of walled gardens. What the trollhunters want to create is a walled garden, admittedly with very low walls, but still access to commenting would become more limited.

I also disagree that this discussion should be framed in terms of media freedom. Online commentaries do not constitute media or journalism in my opinion, it is a separate issue and therefore references to media and press freedom indexes do not really matter. The public debate in the matter has also included mostly people from the media sphere and not other areas who have framed the debate in their own terms.

Short rebuttal of the trollhunters critique of anonymity online:

1. The whistle-blower effect. The trollhunters claim that an anonymous tip option might be sufficient cannot be accepted because it is media-centric and would require an interested journalist to pursue the topic and lack of self-censorship in the media. Anonymous hints cannot replace anonymous commentary, they are different things. The trollhunters agree that certain levels of anonymity might be necessary for informing the public, I say it is essential.

2. Balance between insulting and constructive comments. This depends on the topic, but in most cases I would say based on my experience that insulting comments do not prevail over more insightful ones. Again, there are no studies made or statistical data available other than Delfi claiming that insulting comments are only a fraction of the total body of comments. Even if the majority of comments would bring nothing to the debate, is it worth not having the few that do?

3. Censorship. The trollhunters here refer to the right of newspaper editors to choose what to publish. The commentary space is not in my understanding part of the newspaper and can function without it. The fact that newspapers have always edited their stories have been due to physical lack of room in the paper and the need to provide a concentrated overview. The internet does not have these physical limits and there is nothing lost with adding to concentrated overviews and officially sanctioned opinions other stuff as well. The claims of this leading to mob censorship are speculation.

4. Impact of insulting anonymous comments. It is true that some people are more sensitive to criticism and insults than others, but again, there is no need to censor everyone because of this. Some views are controversial and people get offended. If I want to claim that there is no god, then this is offends people and I will be branded a troll. I believe that online commentary space must allow for expression of those less conformist views, which are not published by newspapers. I disagree that it is right to take away the freedom of expression from one group for the benefit of another.

5. Strength or importance of message. See above. I still refuse to accept the approach that it is somehow justified to prefer one group of people to another in terms of who may or may not express their views.

6. Vox populi, vox dei. I agree with the trollhunters that there needs to be no correlation between general public opinion and views expressed in comments, but I think it also depends on the topic. Likewise, I have seen no statistics which confirm that people believe that views expressed in online commentaries represent the general views in the society.

7. Video game violence argument. The idea is that people can insult others virtually so they will not do it offline. I think there is no correlation here, but no studies have been provided saying one thing or the other. The anger people have is in my own opinion a consequence, and not a cause of the processes in the society.

8. Moderated comments loses valuable discussion. This is subjective. If in some specialist finance related forum it works and likeminded people can express themselves better and feel good about it then fine. I do not think that discussion space for general public should work the same way (the danger to stifling of dissent and danger of conformism).

9. Too many comments to moderate. I think the notice and take-down system works pretty well.

10. Topic already discussed. Nothing to say here. Everything should be open for discussion.

11. Notice and take-down. Probably the system could be improved, I think it is disproportional to ban all anonymous comments due to imperfections of the notice and take-down system.

12. Turn to police. In case there is no real threat police should not be involved. If a person says to another that go jump off a cliff then this obviously is not a real threat. Again, in those cases where there is real threat police should be involved. It does not mean that all anonymous comments need to be banned because police does not do their work.

13. Economic factor. I am not sure if the commenting option is ecnomically beneficial or not, but of course that should not be the prevailing argument for or against limiting free speech online.

14. Freedom of speech is why comments are kept. Not a convincing argument, I agree. But I do think that once they have been introduced, stopping the ability to comment wold be problematic as it has almost become a service of general public interest.

15. Historical perspectives. There has been no time like this and therefore parallels with the past might or might not provide insight into dealing with the issue at hand.

* As pointed out by Daniel, I have put words in the mouths of the trollhunters that they think that anonymous commenting is the root of all evil. The trollhunter guide does not state this and it was an exaggeration on my part. However, I still think that the general tone of the Guide seems to connect anonymous expression with the existence of insulting and derogatory comments. I guess it would be fair to say that the authors consider it as a not an insignificant part of all evil

Estonian Higher Education is systematically flawed

Estonian higher education is deeply, systematically flawed. The greatest flaw is not the lack of cooperation among Estonian universities, but rather forced cooperation where competition should be encouraged. Dreams of one and only “Estonian University” or the University of Tartu’s dream of them as the only university in Estonia will end up a nightmare where there are no substantial universities in Estonia at all.

The main problem of Estonian universities is the small pond effect. Universities, and Ministers of Education seem to see only Estonian higher education space, where they should see at least European or global higher education space. Today’s academic world is not constrained by boundaries and the more time we spend closing our higher education space off for foreigners the worse off we will be. If we want our universities to be European class or regional centres of academy we need to do the following things:

1. Forget about Estonian-language higher education: This single biggest thing holding back Estonian universities is the lack of teaching and studying in English. Using English as the only language for studies will be an enormous benefit. Today, Estonian institutions of higher education work against, not towards internationalisation, mostly due to the lack of English language skills of faculty and staff.

2. Stop discriminatory practices in admissions, forget about state exams: SAIS only for Estonians with Estonian ID cards has perhaps made it easier to administer the admissions process, but it has also separated Estonians from other students.

3. Admit the failure of state regulation, give universities their freedom. Forced migration to 3+2 is an ongoing disaster that has resulted in terrible loss of academic quality and competitiveness. The same applies to all state mandated reforms that no one really needs. At the moment Estonian universities are extensions of the Ministry of Education and Research, they are being pushed and pulled by different reforms and practices. Forget about state funded places, forget about state funded research libraries: just give the money to universities so that they can be responsible and choose their own means of providing access to universities for disadvantaged students or decide which books, databases etc to buy.

I think it is worth to try this radical new approach instead of driving off the cliff, but faster.

The bizarro-world of Tallinn city government

People tend to think of municipal politicians all over the world as more corrupt and less talented as those governing a state. Tallinn however is in a class of its own. All traditional elements of corruption are present: nepotism, favouritism, special deals with certain businessmen, shady advisors, city officials forced to become members of the ruling party, increasing propaganda-machine to hold power, rigorous court actions to defend against supervision etc. Corruption in Tallinn has become so commonplace that people have ceased to expect more and kind of accepted dishonesty as a part of a political ideology used by the Centre Party. No one in their right mind would tolerate the kind of behaviour exhibited by those governing Tallinn among their friends, or in their workplace.

“They are all the same” is just another way for them to shift blame for corruptive acts to someone else, to the democratic system.

The idea for this blog came, as I took trolleybus no 3 back home from work I saw the new “conductor” the Centrist city government has put to many of the public transport buses, trolleybuses and trams in order to create “social” jobs ahead of the local government elections in October. There is nothing social about these people, to me this particular individual seemed to be bored out of his mind. No-one spoke to him, no-one even looked at him during the 25 minute ride. He strolled back and forth through the trolley-bus (which fortunately was not very crowded), fiddled with his phone and tried hard to look important.

In my opinion these people are not conductors, rather they are people who the city government pays to ride the buses and trolleybuses and trams the whole day. I think that being paid to be a commuter is a horrible job, because commuting already for half and hour is quite difficult task. I probably would not survive the full workday in this meanial, boring job. This reminds me of the film where it showed how Nazis tried to break the will of their prisoners in concentration camps by having them move a pile of rocks back and forth between one place and another. I don’t understand why they don’t just pay these “professional commuters” their small salary and let them do something productive. Or put them all in one bus that takes more diverse, scenic routes and where they could play chess, read books. This saves us, the commuters who are not paid to commute, some space and allows to travel comfortably, without having to tolerate watching a person who is in the brink of being bored to death.

I plan to vote for someone who is sane and sensible in the coming local elections and not for someone who only looks at everything through narrow ideological perpective.

Solutions for Estonia’s economic problems

This post is partly inspired by Edward Hugh’s post on Latvia’s economic problems, where he offers three solutions (after devaluation happens, which he thinks is inevitable):

I think this deterioration needs to be addressed as soon as possible, and I see three large issue.

i) Productive capacity needs to be increased substantially. This means increasing the labour force, and this means (as outlined in the World Bank Report, From Red To Grey) facilitating large scale inward migration. Given the serious political implications of encouraging ethnic Russian migration into your country, I see only two viable source regions, the Central Asian Republics in the CIS, and Sub. Saharan Africa. Possibly this solution will not be widely popular with Latvian voters. Well, they do have the right to choose. Your country can take the measures needed to become sustainable, or you can watch it die, as the economy shrinks, and the young people leave. That, I think, is your choice.

The other two measures you need to take are contingent on the first being implemented, since without the first measure you will simply not dispose of the economic resources for the other two.

ii) A serious policy to support those Latvian women who do wish to have children. But with major financial advantages, not half measures, and propaganda stunts. You need policies that can work, and I know plenty of demographers with ideas.But this needs money. Important quantities of money. And gender empowerment, right across the economy, at every level. We have formal legal equality in the labour market, but evident biological and reproductive inequality, in that only one of the parties gets to bear the children. The institutional resources of the state need to redress this imbalance.

iii) Major reforms in the health system to address the underlying male life expectancy problem. You can only seriously hope to raise the labour force participation rates at 65 and over if people arrive at these ages in a fundamentally healthy condition. In economic terms, simple investment theory shows why this is the case. A given society spends a given quantity of resources on producing a given number of children, those who have citizens who live and work longer evidently get a better return on their investment. If you want to raise Latvian living standards, you have to raise the life expectancy. And this apart from the evident human issues.

I think all of this applies to Estonia as well. The last two are already somewhat handled in Estonia, there are programs which support young families and although male life expectancy is still rather low, more effort is being put in sport promotion programmes for general public, healthy lifestyles are promoted etc. The nordic nature of Estonians (and the Finnish role-model) might also contribute to helping Estonians live longer, although at the moment it looks rather bleak.

I tend to agree with Edward Hugh that many of the problems of Estonia’s economic crises have been caused by lack of people. This was true during the boom times (the labour force shortage helped to push the salaries up quickly) and is even worse now that many truly skilled people move abroad where they are offered better salaries and ways of self-improvement, leaving in Estonia a mass of former construction workers and factory workers who have been laid off and who are probably unable neither to leave Estonia nor re-qualify for another job. Meanwhile, it is still difficult to find well-educated people in many areas, regardless of the growing unemployment rate.

A part of the solution is to train those people at our universities. Fortunately, Estonian public policy of pushing people to go to professional education and not to universities has failed and people are still going to universities en-masse (this year’s admissions has been the highest in recent years). It seems, however, that the funds used for the ill-fated push for professional education could have been used better at supporting universities. It is questionable if the big public universities themselves, still bureaucratic behemots with Soviet-era legacies, can provide the skills, knowledge and values required to educate them. The universities could do more with continuing education as well, offering a range of specialised courses for those seeking to update or refresh their skills and knowledge, but not willing to spend time (and money) on full Master or Doctoral programs.

The second part of the solution is increased immigration of unskilled workers from other non-EU countries. This means a change of paradigm in mainstream politics and suppression of strong nationalistic moods prevalent in the society. None of the major political parties in Estonia recognises or debates is the need to increase immigration. Walking around even in Tallinn’s streets it would be very difficult to spot any people who are non-ethnic Estonians or Russians and are not tourists. This is probably due to the effecient work of the Citizenship and Migration Board, which seems to pride itself on keeping the foreigners (at least those not from EU or US) out. One only needs to look at the low numbers of accepted refugees and asylum seekers for this.

Where should the new immigrants come from? The most obvious (and easiest to stomach politically) might be immigrants from Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and other countries which many Estonians have compassion to. I am not so sure that a large scale inward migration from Africa will be as welcomed, although sooner or later there will also be more ethnically diverse mix of people in Estonia as well.

In order to have a long-term and sustainable solution instead of the race to the Euro at all costs, immigration policies must be reviewed and inward immigration increased gradually.

One person, one vote?

There is a movement in Estonia, which calls for constitutional reform in order to “give voting rights to children” by actually giving more votes to the parents of those children. The website of the movement is consists mostly of slogans and demagougery. It is unfortunate that the disillusion with the Estonian political sphere, which is deplorable, has lead to this instead of a real movement for change.

The movement has three ‘principles’:

• The main principle of democracy is “one person, one vote”
• A child is a citizen
• Therefore a child must have a right to vote

One can agree with the first and the second, but not the third. Not even the proponents of the idea want to do that and have toddlers selecting parliament members, they want to give extra votes to the parents or guardians of those children. That is a terrible idea.

Giving parents extra votes for having children is contrary to the principle of direct elections. In a democratic country a person can take part in the “government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives (my emphasis).” The idea of direct elections means that we can choose our representatives directly and freely. A child is unable to freely choose his or her representatives, which means that the principle of direct elections is not followed.

Why is the principle of direct elections so important? Any delegation of the right to vote to someone else is incompatible with democratic minimum standards as it can easily lead to disenfranchising parts of the society. If we give children the right of indirect voting, then this means that we could also perhaps delegate the votes of the mentally ill to their caretakers, prisoners to their families or any other group who cannot vote, but is still a citizen. None of these would even be freely chosen representatives, i.e. children could not choose which wise adult they give their vote to, it has to be the parent or guardian.

In my opinion the fact that such a movement has received quite a substantial support, even by some well-respected journalists, speaks volumes about the weakness of Estonian democracy.

The social consequences would be significant. Spouses disputing who gets to decide how to vote, children disawoving their parent for voting ‘for’ them. The childless, women who are no longer able to give birth and homosexual families are relegated to second class status, where more and more will be taken from them to support the ‘natural’ family. This kind of Estonia I do not want any part of.

Instead of giving more votes to young people, it actually takes them away from them. People tend to marry and have children later, in their late 20s and 30s, which means that the voice of the people in the age range of 18-24 is even lower as they probably do not have children yet.

Of course, the whole idea of having more children in a global world faced with serious overpopulation means that by trying to ensure the continuity of the Estonian nationality, we slightly diminish the survival chances of the entire planet. If all nations of the world adopted having more children of their nationality as the Kantian categorical imperative “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” we would end up with rapidly overpopulating the globe, making it a much much worse place to live, or potentially destroy humanity altogether. I would not wish for my children and children’s children the fate of constant war over rapidly diminishing natural resources and failing ecosystem. This kind of ‘selfish’ national thinking is dangerous.

I believe Estonia and Estonians have a bright future ahead if we are open and welcoming others among ourselves and our culture.

P.S. The campaign website also includes the homophobic statement that “men and women love each other, and out of that love children are born”, implying that two men or two women could not possibly love each other and found a family.

Annex:

Here is a short overview of the international obligations of Estonia in terms of electoral law.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 60th anniversary of which was recently celebrated, should be seen as one of the cornerstones of the world order today in terms of democracy and human rights. Article 21 states, that:

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The same principle is reiterated within Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is in principle obligatory for all states to follow:

Article 25

Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is binding for Estonia, states:

Article 3 – Right to free elections

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

There is also the Declaration on Free and Fair Elections of the Inter-Parliamentary Council, which spells out the direct elections principle.

Uue keeleseaduse eelnõu seletuskirjast

This is a continuation of my previous topic about the new draft of the Estonian language law, so this post will also be in Estonian.

Uurisin täna veidi täpsemalt seda uue keeleseaduse eelnõu seletuskirja ja soovin tähelepanu juhtida mõnedele lõikudele:

Vastavalt Eesti Vabariigi põhiseaduse §-le 6 on Eesti riigikeeleks eesti keel ja keeleseaduse eesmärk on luua vajalik õigusruum eesti keele arendamiseks, säilitamiseks ja kaitseks, samuti peab keeleseadus tagama eesti keele kasutamise peamise suhtluskeelena kõikides avaliku elu valdkondades (minu rõhuasetus).

Naljakas, aga nii see on. Vähe sellest, et riik tunneb endal vastutust reguleerida kõiki avaliku elu valdkondi, surub ta selles peale eesti keele kasutamist peamise suhtluskeelena.

[§ 10 ] Lõiked 1–3 sisalduvad kehtiva keeleseaduse §-s 3 ning nende puhul on ainsaks täienduseks nõue, et ka riigi enamusosalusega äriühingute asjaajamine ning ametlik tööalane suhtlemine toimuvad eesti keeles. Siin on silmas peetud eelkõige selliseid ettevõtteid nagu nt Eesti Energia – enamasti tegelevad need ka mõne avaliku teenuse osutamisega ning riik peab enamusomanikuna suutma eestikeelse asjaajamise ja suhtlemise tagada.

Siin on antud hoop esiteks Eesti Energia rahvusvahelistumise plaanidele, aga samuti mõjutab see kõiki teisi ettevõtteid, millel saab olema ebaõnn riigi enamusosalust omada. Teiseks teatavasti energiaturg on varsti avanemas ja näiteks Läti või Soome valitsuste energiaettevõtted saavad hakata rahulikult ka kodutarbijate pärast konkureerima, ilma, et peaksid tagama eestikeelse ametliku tööalase suhtluse. Üldiselt ei tohiks ju vahet olla, kes on ettevõtte omanik, ja reeglid peaksid kehtima kõigile ettevõtetele samasuguselt olenemata omanikust.

Samas on tegemist ka normitehnilise sobimatusega, sest riik peaks saama oma enamusosalusega ettevõtetes ka läbi juhtorganite keelenõudeid kehtestada või mitte kehtestada. See tundub palju mõistlikum ja konkreetse ettevõtte olukorda paremini arvestav kui seadusesse sissekirjutatud säte, mida hiljem keegi kunagi täitma ei hakka.

Tõenäoliselt on see säte vastuolus Euroopa Liidu õigusega, kuna võib olla õigustamatuks piiranguks töötajate vabale liikumisele.

[§10] Lõikes 4 on sätestatud erand lõikes 1 kehtestatud eestikeelse asjaajamise ja tööalase suhtlemise põhimõttest. Erand puudutab muukeelseid õppeasutusi, mille sisemise asjaajamise kohta praegu selge regulatsioon puudub. Selle lõikega antakse muukeelsetele õppeasutustele õigus õppe- ja kasvatustööga seotud suhtlemisel kasutada kooli õppekeelt, nt klassipäeviku täitmisel, tunnivälise töö korraldamisel, õppenõukogu koosolekutel ja protokollide täitmisel, direktori käskkirjades, lapsevanematega suhtlemisel jne. Kõik need dokumendid, mida koolis koostatakse riigi- või kohaliku omavalitsusega asju ajades, peavad olema eesti keeles.

Kas sellised õppeasutused nagu ülikoolid on eelnõu autoritele ka meelde tulnud? Needsamad ülikoolid, mis peaksid olema võimelised rahvusvahelistuma ning kuhu Eesti riigi ja Euroopa Liidu poolt panustatakse palju ressursse, et suurendada inglisekeelse õppe ja teadustegevuse osakaalu.

[§ 10] Lõige 5 sätestab, et avalikkuse ja asutustega suheldes peavad avalikud teenistujad, avalik-õigusliku ning riigi- ja kohaliku omavalitsuse asutuste töötajad kasutama kirjakeele normile vastavat keelt. Kehtivas keeleseaduses selline nõue otse puudub, kuid kaudselt võib selle tuletada § 1 lõikest 2, mille kohaselt on kirjakeele norm eesti keele ametliku kasutuse aluseks.

Nõue on vajalik selleks, et oleks tagatud avalike teenistujate, avalik-õigusliku ning riigi- ja kohaliku omavalitsuse asutuste töötajate normikohane keelekasutus nii suulises kui ka kirjalikus suhtluses. Kirjakeele normi valdamise nõude esitamine peaks suurendama inimeste keeleteadlikkust ja nõudlikkust enda ja teiste koostatud dokumentide keelekasutuse suhtes. See nõue on kooskõlas avaliku teenistuse seaduse § 14 lõikega 1, mis ütleb et avalik teenistuja valdab eesti keelt seadusega või seaduse alusel sätestatud ulatuses. Keeleoskusnõuet on seni vaadeldud eeskätt mitte-eesti emakeelega inimeste eesti keele oskuse kontekstis, kuid muutunud keeleolukord ja eestlaste kehvemaks muutunud emakeelekasutus on tinginud vajaduse pöörata rohkem tähelepanu ka eestlaste emakeeleoskusele.

Selle nõude osas on edaspidi välistatud igasugused keeleuuendused, mis veel kirjakeele normi ei kuulu. Nii ei tohiks vist president Ilves enam oma päris mitte eesti kirjakeele normile mittevastavaid aga eesti keelele omaseid keeleuuendusi ette võtta. Samuti ei saa avalik-õiguslikud isikud enam tööle võtta inimesi, kes eesti keelt üldse ei oska, nt ülikoolid ei saa tööle võtta välismaiseid tippõppejõude jne.

Oht on ka sattuda vastuollu Euroopa Liidu õigusega, sest avaliku teenistuse erand töötajate vaba liikumisele ei kehti mitte kõigile avalikele teenistujatele või riigi- ja kohaliku omavalitsuse töötajatele, vaid ainult nendele, kelle töö iseloomust tuleneb selline vajadus ning ka keelenõuded peavad olema põhjendatud konkreetse ameti iseloomust lähtuvalt.

[§16] Uue regulatsioonina on lõikes 1 kehtestatud nõue, et ettevõtte liiginimetused (nagu nt kohvik, baar, kauplus) on eestikeelsed ning avalikult eksponeeritud kaubamärgi võõrkeelsele sõnalisele osale, mis sisaldab teavet müüdava kauba või pakutava teenuse kohta, lisatakse vastav teave eesti keeles.

See on siis pank Swedbank kaasus, mille puhul tekib keeleline nonsens (vrdl ka praegu kasutusel olev AS SEB Pank ettevõtte ametlik nimi). Originaal Viinivorstid ilmselt sobib samas? Totrus kuubis, aga põhjendus on veelgi naljakam:

Vajadus selle nõude järele tuleb sellest, et ettevõtjad on järjest sagedamini hakanud tegevuskohanimesid registreerima kaubamärgina, et kõrvale hoida keeleseaduse §-s 23 sätestatud avaliku teabe eestikeelsuse nõudest. Tulemuseks on, et Tallinna, eriti vanalinna välisilme on valdavalt võõrkeelne. Eesti avalikkus ei ole sellega rahul ning Keeleinspektsioon saab võõrkeelsete siltide kohta pidevalt kaebusi. Nende menetlemise käigus on sageli juhtunud, et ettevõtja esitab võõrkeelse ärinime kaubamärgina registreerimise taotluse alles pärast seda, kui on saanud Keeleinspektsioonilt ettekirjutuse lisada võõrkeelsele sildile eestikeelne avalik teave. Kuna kaubamärgikaitse hakkab kehtima taotluse menetlusse võtmise momendist alates, siis on see piisav põhjus ettekirjutus täitmata jätta. Seepärast on otstarbekas sätestada seadusega, et kaubamärgi võõrkeelse sõnalise osa olulist teavet sisaldavale osale lisatakse eestikeelne teave. Sellega ei piirata ettevõtja õigust kaubamärgi valiku või selle kujundamise üle otsustada, vaid kaitstakse Eesti elanike õigust saada eestikeelset avalikku teavet.

Esiteks ei ole seletuskirjas viidatud allikana ühelegi uuringule, millest tulenevalt “Eesti avalikkus” võõrkeelsete siltidega rahul ei ole. Keeleinspektsiooni kaebavad inimesed loodetavast ei moodusta kogu Eesti avalikku arvamust ja ka nende kaebuste puhul ei ole teada kui suur hulk inimesi asjast puudutatud on. Sarnaselt peaks siis ära keelama vägivaldsed filmid, muusika ja muud eneseväljendused, mis mõningaid inimest innustavad kaebusi kirjutama.

Tallinna vanalinna välisilme on võõrkeelne, sest seal käivad põhiliselt eesti keelt mittevaldavad inimesed. Ettevõtja paneb oma kohvikule või poele ikka üldiselt sellise nime, mis kliente toob, mitte neid ei peleta. Arusaamatu on ka põhjendus, miks inimestele peab andma infot just tegevuskohanimede kohta eesti keeles: kas riik arvab, et eesti inimesed on nii rumalad, et ei saa aru, kas tegemist on kohviku, panga või poega?

Uue sättena on lisatud veebilehtede keele regulatsioon (lõige 3). Praegu kehtivas keeleseaduses ei ole veebilehti ega nende keelekasutust reguleeritud ning seda ära kasutades on paljude Eestis registreeritud äriettevõtete, eriti teenindus-, majutus- ja toitlustusettevõtete kodulehed võõrkeelsed ning seda on põhjendatud sellega, et veebileht on suunatud välismaalastele. Samas on selge, et olemuselt ja eesmärgilt on tegemist tarbijateabega tarbijakaitseseaduse mõttes või avaliku teabega, mistõttu on õigustatud ka eestikeelsuse nõude esitamine vähemalt samas ulatuses nagu igal muul viisil edastatava avaliku või tarbijateabe puhul.

Internetis toimuva õiguslik regulatsioon on täiesti iseseisev teema, ent nüüd siis peavad kõik eesti ettevõtete netilehed olema eestikeelsed, seda ka ilmselt juhtudel, kui ettevõte Eestis oma kaupu või teenuseid ei pakugi. See muudab Eesti ettevõtete elu muidugi veidi keerulisemaks kui varem. Samuti on tegemist potentsiaalselt ühinguvabaduse piiramisega, sest kui nt eesti keelt mittevaldavad isikud võivad ju luua MTÜ ning kui nad soovivad endale näiteks blogi teha kus kutsuvad teisi endaga liituma, siis peab seal olema ka eestikeelne info. Õnneks pole mindud nii kaugele, et Eesti riik nõuaks, et mina oma blogi peaks hakkama eesti keeles pidama.

See nõue käib nende veebilehtede kohta, mis sisaldavad teavet äriühingu, mittetulundusühingu, sihtasutuse või füüsilisest isikust ettevõtja tegevusvaldkonna ja/või pakutavate kaupade või teenuste kohta, st sellise teabe kohta, millele eestikeelse teabe saamise õigus tuleb tarbijakaitseseadusest. Sellest sättest ei tule eespool nimetatuile veebilehe loomise kohustust neile ettevõtjatele, kellel seda seni ei ole.

See on tore, et riik ei pane kohustust veebileht luua, aga kui tarbijakaitseseaduses see juba reguleeritud on, siis miks seda keeleseadusega täiendavalt teha tuleks? Igasugune topeltregulatsioon tekitab ohu, et seadused sattuvad omavahel vastuollu muutuste tõttu.

Paragrahvi 19 puhul on tegemist täiesti uue regulatsiooniga. Selles sätestatakse, kirjakeele normi järgimise kohustus üleriigilise levikuga ajakirjandusväljaannetes, sh veebiväljaannetes. Trükiajakirjandus avaldab suurt mõju inimeste keelekasutusele ning seetõttu on oluline, et see oleks heas eesti keeles. Vajadus selle normi järele tuleb sellest, et ajakirjanduskeele kvaliteet on aasta-aastalt halvemaks muutunud. See on kooskõlas ka tarbijakaitseseaduses sätestatud nõudega, et toode või teenus peab olema selliste omadustega, mida tarbija tavaliselt õigustatult eeldab.

Ajakirjandusväljaande kvaliteedi osas hääletavad inimesed rahakotiga, ehk siis halba toodet ei osteta. Mina tarbijana küll ei eelda korrektset keelekasutust lehtedelt ja eriti veebis. Veebis on oluline uudise edastamise kiirus, mitte keeleline kvaliteet. Mida üldse tähendab veebiväljaanne, kas ka minu blogi kuulub sinna alla, seega peaks siiski hakkama kirjakeele normi järgima? Selgitage mõistet veebiväljaanne, palun!

Sama lõike järgmised laused selgitavad, et kirjakeele normi nõuded ei kehti ajakirjandusväljaandes avaldatava kunstilise teksti suhtes ning et piirkondliku levikuga ajakirjandusväljaannetes võib kasutada eesti keele piirkondlikku erikuju. Seega ei ole kirjakeele normi järgimise nõue suunatud mitte isikupärase stiili ega sõna- või väljendusvabaduse vastu, vaid oskamatu, elementaarseid õigekirjareegleid eirava ja lugejat eksitava keelekasutuse vastu.

Minu meelest on need nõuded suunatud just isikupärase stiili ja sõna- ning väljendusvabaduse vastu. Misasi on “kunstiline tekst”? Kas see on näiteks luuletus või võib ka näiteks mõni artikkel olla kirjutatud “kunstiliselt”? Kui see lollus ka läbi läheb, siis minu soovitus on ajalehtedel seda sätet ignoreerida ning öelda, et kogu nende ajalehe tekst ongi kunstiline tekst, sh reklaamid.

Ka paragrahvi 20 näol on tegemist uue sättega. Majanduse rahvusvahelistumise tingimustes on võõrkeelseid lepinguid kasutama hakanud ka kohalikud ettevõtjad (nt kindlustus-, kulleriteenuseid osutavate firmade, aga samuti ehitusettevõtete alltöövõtulepingud). Keeleinspektsioon on selle kohta hulgaliselt kaebusi saanud inimestelt, kelle arvates võõrkeelsete lepingute kasutamine rikub nende õigust eestikeelsele asjaajamisele ja suhtlemisele ega anna neile piisavalt teavet lepingust tulenevate õiguste ja kohustuste kohta. Võlaõigusseadus sätestab eesti keeles koostamise nõude ainult üksikute lepinguliikide puhul (ehitise ajutise kasutamise leping, kindlustusleping, elektroonilise maksevahendi kasutamise leping) kuid ka nende puhul ei ole sellest nõudest alati kinni peetud, rääkimata võimalusest tagada muude lepingute lepingupoolte õigus lepingu keelt valida.

Samas ei piira säte lepinguvabadust ning pooltel on siiski õigus kokku leppida muukeelse lepingu sõlmimises.

Siin on kommentaarid liigsed: säte on tühi õhk, sest kui isikud on lepingu sõlminud, siis on see ju kokkulepe ja kui isikud on sellele alla kirjutanud, on nad ka aktsepteerinud selles kasutatavat keelt. Ainus “kasu”, mis sellest sättest võib tulla, on see, et lepingupooled üritavad seda sätet ära kasutada, et lepingut kehtetuks tunnistada.

Keeleinspektsiooni õigusi tuleks tunduvalt piirata ning sisuliselt seda asutust reformida. Eelnõust kumab läbi see, et tegemist ongi justkui inspektsiooni poolt kirjutatuga.

Kokkuvõtteks: Keeleseaduse eelnõu rikub potentsiaalselt Euroopa Liidu õigust, sõna- ja väljendusvabadust, mõjub halvasti ettevõtluskeskkonnale ning Eesti ettevõtete konkurentsivõimele. Eesti keele kaitsmise asemel võib tulemus olla vastupidine, sarnaselt lipuheiskamisega riigipühadel peaks selges ja puhtas eesti keeles rääkimine ja kirjutamine olema igaühe südametunnistuse küsimus, mitte riigipoolse sunniga saavutatu.

P.S. Seletuskirjast on puudu ka detailne analüüs keeleseaduse võimalikust vastuolust nõukogu määrusega 1612/68. Selle asemel on märgitud seletuskirjas ühe lausega, et “[e]elnõu ei ole vastuolus EL õigusega.”