Socialist Party MP Iris Luarasi used the floor of Parliament to raise the alarm over verbal violence and the wave of threatening comments that, according to her, erupted after the publication of a video showing her confronting a group of protesters in a shopping center.
What she said in Parliament
During her speech in the plenary session, Luarasi returned to the incident that took place a few days earlier when, according to her account, she was followed and verbally insulted while on her way to Parliament.
She compared the group that surrounded her to “Enver’s pioneers” and said the insults directed at her had nothing to do with normal political debate, but with a climate of public intimidation against a woman in politics.
Claims about the spread of the video
The MP said the video of the incident had been widely shared and seen by millions of people, but her emphasis was not only on the footage, but on what happened afterward in the online space.
According to the figures she presented in Parliament, her name was mentioned in 708 articles, across 64 online media outlets and 134 named accounts, while the overall reach of the content reached 14.9 million and views 4.8 million. She added that 80 percent of this wave of reactions was generated within 48 hours.
730 comments that, according to her, cross the line of debate
The most serious part of her denunciation concerned comments on social networks and digital platforms. Luarasi said 730 comments had been identified that, according to her, contained punitive or potentially violent language, with references to prison, disappearance, hanging, burning and shooting.
She stressed that not every insult automatically constitutes hate speech in the legal sense, but argued that such calls against an MP who was going to work cannot be presented as normal political opposition.
From the incident to the broader question of the public climate
In her speech, the MP said she was not speaking as a victim, but as a rapporteur who, according to her, has data on the way online violence is amplified.
The case once again raises questions about the boundary between protest, public lynching and incitement to violence in the digital space, especially when political episodes are quickly turned into campaigns of aggressive comments without any filter or visible accountability.
At this stage, only the claims and figures presented by Luarasi in Parliament have been made public. It has not been clarified whether there has been institutional verification, a formal complaint or any concrete reaction regarding the comments she considers threatening.
The debate remains open not only over the language used against public figures, but also over the standard by which institutions and platforms respond when verbal violence turns into direct calls for physical punishment.