A verbal clash at the entrance to Parliament put MP Iris Luarasi at the center of attention after she was insulted by several protesters and then reacted publicly by warning of a complaint. The incident also became public through a video shared by activist Arvina Lleshi.
What happened at the entrance to Parliament
According to the footage and published descriptions, several protesters clashed with MP Iris Luarasi at the entrance to Parliament, calling her a “thief.”
In the video posted by activist Arvina Lleshi, other shouts can also be heard directed at the lawmaker, including “Hey criminal,” along with accusations that she is “an abuser of women” and that she “does not represent women.”
Iris Luarasi’s reaction
Through a video message, Luarasi gave her version of the incident, saying that several girls had been waiting for her with curses, insults and mobile phones ready to film the clash.
She said she was accused of not defending women, while claiming that she herself had been the target of verbal violence from young women. In her response, the MP said criticism is one thing, but humiliation and insult are another.
Accusations about “activism” and warning of a report
In her message, Luarasi rejected the labels directed at her and said she would not allow what she described as attacks on her name, work and honor.
She described it as problematic that, according to her, verbal violence is being presented as activism, and closed her response by declaring that she would report the case and leave further action in the hands of the justice system.
An episode that adds to tensions outside Parliament
The incident comes amid a tense climate in public communication, where political clashes and activism on the ground often move into insulting and confrontational tones.
At this stage, only the shared footage and the MP’s response have been made public, while it remains to be seen whether the warning of a complaint will be followed by concrete legal steps.
The clash in front of Parliament once again highlighted the fragile line between protest, public accusation and legal responsibility when debate turns into personal insults.
The case has opened another debate over the way political representatives and activists confront each other in public space, especially when conflict unfolds under phone cameras and on the doorstep of institutions.