This is the shocking moment a vicious clash between the government and the opposition in Armenia’s parliament descended into a mass brawl over a bizarre proposal to create a national “Ministry of Sex” — with the chaotic violence broadcast live to the nation. Chairs, water bottles and flying punches turned Armenia’s National Assembly into a battlefield on Thursday (October 29), marking the third time in just one month that the notoriously combustible chamber has erupted into physical violence. The chaotic incident kicked off during an address by Taron Chakhoyan, an MP from the ruling Civil Contract party. Mr Chakhoyan took aim at the opposition Strong Armenia bloc, demanding an unreserved apology to women for their controversial campaign pledge to establish a dedicated government ministry to ensure “no unsatisfied women” remain in the country.

The opposition party had previously claimed that widespread sexual dissatisfaction was driving middle-aged women into anti-government political activism. During Thursday’s debate, Mr Chakhoyan accused the opposition of being “steeped in corruption” and branded Strong Armenia leader Narek Karapetyan a “mess from head to toe”.

Furious opposition politicians surged from their benches and charged the podium where Mr Chakhoyan was speaking. Within seconds, verbal insults deteriorated into a full-scale physical confrontation, with lawmakers trading punches and kicks as cameras rolled.

Vahagn Aleksanyan, parliament’s deputy speaker and a Civil Contract member, was seen hurling a heavy chair toward opposition benches. Mr Chakhoyan splashed water over opposition MP Garnik Davtyan, while other lawmakers overturned tables and pelted rivals with plastic bottles.

Parliament Speaker Ruben Rubinyan initially refused to cut the live feed, declaring he would not interrupt the broadcast so the public could witness the lawmakers’ conduct firsthand. As the violence spiralled out of control, a recess was called, but the fighting spilled into the corridors outside the main chamber.

Security personnel and non-combatant MPs attempted to form a human wall to separate the warring factions, though they were unable to halt the clashes as obscene language echoed through the halls. Paramedics were scrambled to the parliament building as an ambulance arrived to treat multiple casualties.

Speaker Ruben Rubinyan refused to cut the live feed (Image: -)

Andranik Gevorgyan, an MP from Strong Armenia, was seen bleeding heavily from the nose, while fellow opposition MP Ruben Mkhitaryan had his clothes shredded in the melee. Neither side showed remorse following the altercation.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan later backed his party members at a press conference, stating: “I condemn violence, but I support the measures taken by the Civil Contract faction today, because being in the opposition does not mean that one should become insolent. Whether with a chair or something else, it is proportionate and right.” Mr Pashinyan later mocked the opposition online, joking that despite their party name, the lawmakers were not “physically strong”.

Mr Chakhoyan added: “It won’t work to provoke a fight and escape from the National Assembly session hall without getting beaten.” Unrepentant, Strong Armenia leader Narek Karapetyan defended the brawl as a “normal Armenian-style man-to-man fight,” adding: “People who had been getting on our nerves for months got it right in the mouth – and got it good”.

The prosecutor general’s office confirmed there was currently no information regarding criminal charges arising from the incident.

Furious MPs Trade Punches and Hurl Chairs During Chaotic Live Broadcast as Tempers Explode Over Bizarre Proposal

A political discussion descended into extraordinary scenes of disorder after furious MPs reportedly exchanged punches and threw chairs during a chaotic live broadcast. What was expected to be a routine parliamentary debate quickly turned into a confrontation as tempers flared over a controversial proposal that had divided politicians and sparked strong reactions from both sides.

Viewers watching the programme were left stunned as the disagreement escalated, with several politicians reportedly losing their composure and abandoning attempts to maintain an orderly discussion.

The incident has raised fresh questions about political conduct, parliamentary responsibility and the increasingly confrontational atmosphere surrounding controversial public policies.

The trouble reportedly began when one MP introduced an unusual proposal that immediately attracted criticism from colleagues.

Supporters attempted to explain why the idea deserved serious consideration, arguing that it could address an issue that had remained unresolved for years.

However, opponents strongly rejected the suggestion, describing it as unnecessary, unrealistic and potentially damaging to the public interest.

As the disagreement continued, politicians began interrupting one another, raising their voices and making increasingly personal remarks.

The presenter attempted to regain control of the discussion, repeatedly asking MPs to allow others to speak.

Unfortunately, the situation reportedly deteriorated further.

Several participants became involved in a heated exchange, with accusations and angry gestures creating an increasingly hostile atmosphere.

At one point, the confrontation allegedly turned physical, with punches exchanged and chairs thrown across the room.

The extraordinary scenes transformed what had been a political discussion into a moment of disorder that attracted immediate attention.

For viewers, the incident raised an obvious question: how could a debate about a political proposal become so aggressive?

The controversy surrounding the proposal appeared to be at the centre of the disagreement.

Although politicians had different interpretations of its potential consequences, the strength of the reaction suggested that the issue had become deeply divisive.

Some MPs believed the proposal represented an opportunity to introduce meaningful change.

Others argued that it could create unnecessary complications and distract attention from more important national priorities.

The disagreement also highlighted wider tensions between politicians who believe controversial ideas should be explored and those who consider certain proposals politically or financially unacceptable.

Live television can intensify these disagreements because politicians are required to defend their positions under immediate public scrutiny.

Unlike private meetings, televised debates leave little opportunity to reconsider comments before they reach millions of viewers.

A single accusation can quickly provoke an emotional response, particularly when politicians believe their personal reputations or political records are being challenged.

The incident has also renewed discussion about standards of behaviour among elected representatives.

Members of parliament are expected to debate disagreements through argument, evidence and democratic procedures.

Physical confrontations have no place in the ordinary conduct of political debate.

The public expects politicians to demonstrate leadership, self-control and respect, particularly when discussing decisions that could affect millions of people.

When disagreements turn into personal hostility, attention moves away from the actual policy questions and towards the behaviour of those involved.

The programme’s presenter was reportedly faced with the difficult task of restoring order while cameras continued recording.

In situations involving several angry participants, maintaining control can become particularly challenging.

Producers may also have to decide whether continuing the broadcast is appropriate or whether the programme should temporarily move away from the confrontation.

The incident could have consequences for the politicians involved if their behaviour is confirmed and formally investigated.

Depending on the circumstances, parliamentary authorities or broadcasters could face pressure to examine what happened and determine whether any rules were broken.

However, it is important to establish the precise circumstances before drawing conclusions about individual responsibility.

The wider political consequences could also be significant.

Political trust has become an increasingly important issue in Britain and other democracies, with voters expressing frustration about arguments that appear more focused on personal attacks than practical solutions.

People want politicians to discuss the economy, healthcare, immigration, housing and public safety.

They expect disagreements to produce serious discussions rather than scenes of disorder.

The controversy has therefore become a reminder that political debate must remain focused on ideas and public accountability.

Ultimately, the alleged confrontation demonstrates how quickly a controversial proposal can become the centre of a wider political crisis.

However, without verified details about the programme, the country involved and the specific proposal, the reported punches and thrown chairs should not be treated as established facts.

What remains important is the principle that elected representatives must be able to disagree strongly without abandoning the standards of conduct expected of public office.

Democracy depends on open debate, different opinions and the ability to challenge those in power.

But it also depends on respect, accountability and the willingness to resolve disagreements through discussion rather than intimidation.