“Thirty percent, we won’t consent” chants echoed across Schuman roundabout in the Brussels European quarter this week, as culture, media and journalist workers demanded that national leaders halt plans to reduce cash for culture in a protest on Thursday (29 October).

Representatives from European rights forums, culture groups and a journalism federation gathered in a bid to keep enough money flowing to their organisations.

“There’s a very grim future if we continue with these cuts,” said Rhys Nugent of Culture Action Europe, one of the protest’s organisers. “These sectors are already on their knees.”

The demonstration came after EU leaders discussed giving less money than previously proposed to AgoraEU, an umbrella for culture, media, democracy and rights initiatives, within the EU’s 2028-2034 budget.

30% less for culture

Reacting to the EU Commission’s proposal to give AgoraEU €8.6bn under the long-term budget, the EU parliament’s budget committee asked to ramp this up to €10.7bn.

But national capitals have not agreed to either proposal.

Instead, the Irish presidency of Council presented a plan earlier this month (October 10) to allocate €5.3bn for AgoraEU –  representing a 30 percent cut to the commission’s proposal. It was responding to pressures for frugality from some member states.

National capitals are yet to finalise a budget agreement.

“They picked culture because they think it’s an easy target, but it will affect journalists, artists and NGOs who are the backbone of our democratic society” said Nela Reihl, a German Green MEP and chair of parliament’s culture and education committee.

“If this goes through, people will wake up one day and ask: why are my rights not protected? Why has that film festival disappeared? Where has my local publisher gone?” she said.

“These cuts will save only a tiny percent of the EU budget but cause massive damage to these sectors,” added the German lawmaker. 

What could be chopped?

AgoraEU is a new umbrella for Creative Europe and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV).

Protest organiser Nugent said Creative Europe “funds everything from small theatrical productions to large cooperation around Europe.”

He pointed to Flow, an Oscar-winning film, Europa Cinemas, and Culture Moves Europe as examples of the types of bodies that could be affected by a lack of EU funding.

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

Portugal’s minister for internal affairs accepted political responsibility today for the police operations at protest camps in Lisbon and Porto at the weekend, clarifying that the PSP has “full technical,

The post Minister accepts political responsibility for police interventions appeared first on Portugal Resident.

Minor skirmishes reported between police and demonstrators demanding more funding for education and relief from high living costs; many carry Palestinian flags, anti-Israel posters

Another weekend, another round of violence on the strife-torn streets of France. That was the grim forecast Friday as the country's interior minister warned of a "very high risk of public disorder" across the coming 48-hours as some 70,000 police officers prepare for riots over the Halloween weekend.

The post France Prepares for ‘Very High’ Violence as It Braces for Halloween Riots appeared first on Breitbart.

The French government is reportedly considering a so-called riot tax that would add the cost of frequent unrest to citizens' insurance bills.

The post France to Impose ‘Riot Tax’ on Insurance to Pay for Damage of Islamo-Leftist Unrest appeared first on Breitbart.

More than a thousand PSP and GNR police officers demonstrated in Lisbon yesterday evening, demanding respect and vowing to resume protests if the government fails to put forward concrete proposals

The post Police add to Portugal’s protests, demanding ‘respect’ appeared first on Portugal Resident.

Serbs voted “Students Win” without knowing what their program offers, it doesn’t even matter, “anyone is better than Vučić.”

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

What to make of the present Serbian moment? Post-Milošević politics is closing a two-and-a-half-decade cycle, standing on the threshold of a new era whose dynamics mirror the old. But history does not repeat; it rhymes. Eerily familiar patterns, driven by traits of the collective Serbian psyche, are re-emerging, even as external and internal material conditions chart a divergent course.

Color Revolutions are quite simple on a level identical to basic marketing. Why does the average person opt to pay a considerable premium for Nikes over some generic basketball shoe? There is top-down vertical advertising at the first level, but this is later surpassed by horizontal peer to peer viralization which leverages on social acceptance. Here this is a simple combination of Edward Bernays’ 1923 work, Crystalizing Public Opinion, his 1928 work, Propaganda, combined with Gustav Le Bon’s 1895 work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Then of course there are Saul Alinsky, Gene Sharp, and Sharp’s student and Otpor! leader, Srđa Popović. But since the Arab Spring series of Color Revolutions, social media starting with Twitter became a critical factor.

There resides a great strength in social media, the TikTok generation, which also characterized by and large the foreign NGO-backed “Student” movement itself. The “Student list” came to power without clearly communicating to its own voters what exactly they would do on economic, territorial, and foreign policy matters if elected. On October 26th, they were placating Serbian nationalists and Eurosceptics on Russian television to absolve them of fears which in reality they are justified in having. We saw this also with Magyar in Hungary, so this part of the play’s script was not only already rehearsed, but had seen its opening night in the Hunnic lands to the north. But the “Student List” color revolutionaries did not wait long, on October 27^th, Ilija Srdanović, lead candidate of the Student List told the U.S. funded Radio Free Europe that the new government will continue EU integration and the EU-mediated dialogue with Pristina, we presume, towards Kosovo recognition.

Screenshot from RFE/RL Interview with Srdanovic

What Serbs before the election were told by the “Student List” was “Trust me, bro”, a gamble that a “majority” of people in the small Balkan country were apparently willing to take. We will not even discuss the improbability of over 600,000 new voters rising from graves or crawling out of strollers to vote, as Vučić is not challenging the results, even though the “Student List” Color Revolutionaries expected him to.

That fact alone relates to a broader economic and military crisis which looms overhead, and will be the subject of further analysis which will better explain why Vučić is in the optimal position politically as an opposition leader over the course of the coming years. But on that note, our prior analysis of the EU/NATO drive to war with Russia in 2029/2030 is all but certain; see Still a failure: The City of London backs EU’s €90 billion Ukraine war-chest.

The vaguemaxxing approach perfected at Occupy Wall Street sixteen years ago allowed the anti-Vučić opposition to present as a Rorschach blot of sorts; appearing as anti-EU/NATO nationalists to the nationalists and appear as pro-EU liberal to the liberals. Though, to wit, most sophisticated-enough liberals understood the strategy: to fool the “under-educated, Orthodox, working class, country-bumpkin nationalists”. This is part of the problem of the Serbian professional managerial class “intelligentsia” as Archibald Reiss understood over a century ago, and as we will discuss later on in this piece.

To understand the present moment requires grasping the years of betrayal that followed the post–Cold War era’s first color revolution, which unfolded in Belgrade twenty-six years ago. We outline those fifteen years before the rise of the Serbian Progressive Party for two important reasons; first to set the record straight on the actual condition of the “selling out” of Serbia as those new to the Serbia story are prone to believe the “Student list” ADHD propaganda that Vučić did these things, and second, perhaps more importantly, as a funhouse mirror forecast of sorts, given that we are nearing the start of a new rhyming historical cycle (back towards chaos and betrayals). However, the broader global context has changed. NATO is in a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Serbia is threatened on all sides, and is obviously both the lowest hanging fruit and the “punching bag” for the EU/NATO: what they cannot inflict upon Russia, they will inflict upon Serbia, which they regard as “little Russia”.

October 5^th – The “Bulldozer Revolution” – Color Revolutionaries storm the Parliament building and overthrow Milošević

Recall back in October, 2000; after winning the election, DOS (Demokratska opozicija Srbije), whose representative at the time was Vojislav Koštunica, the ruling party Socialists hastily betrayed and extradited their man, former president Slobodan Milošević, to an ad hoc tribunal established by bodies that had no jurisdiction over it. Immediately before the election, the sentiment of the people and the opposition movement “Otpor” was that anyone was better than Slobodan Milošević; they promised prosperity, peace and stability, a state without corruption or the mafia, and the people believed it. Following the election results, celebrations lasted for days with the slogan “He’s finished” and with hope for a better tomorrow. Their “better tomorrow” never came.

Serbia was in an abyss from 2000 all the way to 2012, around 1200 state-owned companies were sold for chump change, largely to foreign interests. These had been not only a mark of sovereignty, but also provided fair and reliable wages that working families relied upon. Because of the leaders of the DOS, Serbia was economically destroyed in the years that followed. When it was believed things couldn’t get worse, they proved Serbs wrong. Serbia was ruled by a party whose members were not in agreement regarding politics and the path they wanted to take, for all that united them was the rancid combination of Western backing and opposition to Milošević, (and this is the same contradiction we find with the “Student government” today).

This was evidenced again in 2003 with the extradition of the president of the opposition Radical Party, Vojislav Šešelj, to the Hague Tribunal, where he remained until 2014 and was never convicted, and released and returned to Serbia in 2016 as the result of back-channel work done under Vučić in coordination with the Radical Party (an effort which this author participated). Later in that same year of 2003, just a month after Šešelj’s extradition, Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić was likely assassinated by members of the Serbian security establishment who feared that Đinđić would continue to extradite more Serbian patriots, which further weakened an already shaken state. Following this and the failed presidential elections, the disagreements between the leaders of DOS reached a culmination and the party split into two fronts, DS and DSS. During 2003 and 2004 Serbia had no president but rather a string of acting presidents: first Nataša Mićić (Civic Alliance of Serbia), who held that duty for three months, then Dragan Maršićanin (DSS) held the role for a month, then Predrag Marković (G17plus) performed the function for three months, after which Boris Tadić, of the Democratic Party (DS), was elected president in July 2004.

To make themselves more acceptable to EU membership, Serbian laws were changed and a new Constitution was adopted in 2006, during the term of President Tadić. In that constitution, Kosovo and Metohija were placed in the preamble of the constitution supposedly to emphasize the significance of the fact that Kosovo and Metohija is part of Serbia, forgetting to emphasize that the preamble of a constitution is not necessarily a binding part. Immediately before the adoption of the 2006 Constitution, the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was dissolved, leaving Serbia landlocked. This was the culmination of a Western-instructed independence referendum, made possible when Serbian authorities previously signed the Belgrade Agreement to restructure relations between Serbia and Montenegro, where there we saw the renaming of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into the Union State of Serbia and Montenegro before its eventual split. A questionable constitution was adopted. At that moment, Serbia had no real army, the “Democratic” authorities made sure of this during that period, which in turn laid the perfect groundwork for the ethnic Albanian declaration of independence of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia in February 2008. Serbia had no army to defend it, the people took to the streets and protested, but since preserving Serbian sovereignty was not on the list of Western/NGO requirements of Serbia, nothing came of it. Nota bene: this is what happens when protests are without mass institutional support (foreign or domestic); the elites weather them and people’s spontaneous protests fizzle out and demoralization sets in. Sustained protests for years requires massive organization and high levels of funding and coordination.

After this, Serbia under Tadić signs the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU. In 2008 Serbia experiences an economic crash during the global crisis engineered by Wall Street and the City of London (which as an aside led to the next round of Color Revolutions in the form of the Arab Spring within two years), the loss of jobs, and a spike in the euro exchange rate. After that, the then- Democratic Party (DS) authorities under President Tadić extradited more Serbian heroes to the Hague Tribunal: Republika Srpska President Radovan Karadžić in 2008, followed Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić in 2011, in exchange for which Serbia received candidate status for EU membership.

Archibald Reiss, the Swiss criminologist and Serbophile was so moved by the Serbian spirit, unity, and sacrifice during the First World War that he made Serbia his home, but in equal measure found himself outraged and indeed demoralized by the levels of corruption, opportunism, and classism among the elites both during and after the war. His insights into the Serbian mentality tell us a lot about what we have just seen, or rather, why things played out the way they did. Reiss meticulously dissected the tragic rift between the noble, heroic ordinary people and a self-serving, corrupt intellectual and political elite. Reiss would have viewed the foreign-backed NGO color revolution that ousted Vučić as little more than another manifestation of the Serbian elite’s moral decay, naivety, and subservience to external powers, and also their sense of entitlement lording over the Serbian masses, in Ottoman style, but worse for it requires manipulating and playing upon Serbian patriotism, sense of duty, and their deep rooted commitment to both personal and collective freedom. Reiss would sharply lament how the populace, endowed with immense bravery yet often prone to political short-sightedness and easily gas-lit by grand rhetoric, allowed themselves to become pawns in a geopolitical game orchestrated by foreign money and nefarious interests. He would fiercely criticize the urban “intelligentsia” and opportunistic political actors for their uncritical envy and imitation of foreign masters (what today we would call a product of autochauvinism combined with foreign soft power acculturation), pointing out that in exchanging one ostensibly “corrupt autocrat” for leaders beholden to external NGOs, Serbia merely traded internal political clientelism for foreign subservience. To Reiss, actual national sovereignty and social justice could never be gifted by foreign-funded apparatuses; rather, by relying on foreign interventions instead of conducting a deep, self-reliant moral regeneration from within, Serbians had once again fallen victim to their tragic flaw: letting the “king of money” and corrupt elites dictate their destiny while losing sight of their own authentic identity.

Čujte Srbi: čuvajte se sebe – by Rodolphe Archibald Reiss

Reiss observed that the Serbian political elite and the self-proclaimed intelligentsia flipped wildly between a sense of superiority over their own populace and deep-seated envy of wealthier, more advanced foreign nations. Their idea of modernizing Serbia was not to build on authentic national virtues, but to copy external models superficially (today, the EU or the ‘Nordic model’) while harboring a hidden disdain for the common Serbian peasant (Vučić voters, derided as Sendvučić, voting in exchange for sandwiches). Modernization, in that sense, was a vanity project rather than a matter of national survival.

Magyar offers congratulations to the Student List

So now here in late October 2026 we hear “He’s finished” on the streets. Once again, Serbs have bought the lie. Once again a state without corruption, without a mafia was promised. Serbs voted “Students Win” without knowing what their program offers, it doesn’t even matter, “anyone is better than Vučić.” The paradox is that now the state will be led by the very people who ruined it in the period from 2000 to 2012 and to finish everything they couldn’t back then. We can forecast the return of the Hungarian separatist movement in Vojvodina, which flourished in the early 2000s with the support of the Provincial Government headed by Bojan Pajtić in the period from 2004 to 2009, who is now on the Students Win parliamentary list. Without Orbán in Hungary, and specifically with Magyar there in charge, we can all but guarantee it. But as we have said, war is on the horizon. Where the Russian army situates by 2028 will determine much. Where the U.S. will situate after presidential elections in November of that same year will determine the rest.

Follow Joaquin Flores on Telegram @NewResistance or on X/Twitter @XoaquinFlores

I moved to Poland from London with my Polish husband, and we are raising our two-year-old  son here. My son will grow up and live his entire life within the digital infrastructure that the government is building today. The fact that I was not born in Poland does not mean I don’t care about its future, as a mother, I have an obligation to fight for my son’s rights as a Polish  citizen. 

Recently, I saw that the Polish Ministry of National Defence has signed a  Letter of Intent with the American analytics company Palantir Technologies.

Having lived  through what happened in the United Kingdom when our government signed similar agreements, I believe that Polish people deserve to know what happens when public systems are handed over to a foreign defence contractor.

Among the company’s founding investors was In-Q-Tel, the CIA’s venture capital arm. 

In London, I was part of a campaign group fighting against Palantir’s contract with our National Health Service (NHS).

Under that agreement, the US defence contractor gained deep access to NHS data systems, including mental health records, reproductive health data, and medication history.

Heavily redacted contracts

Over 100 pages of the contract remain heavily redacted and hidden from the public. Because Palantir is an American corporation, citizens cannot easily hold them to account or use basic data access requests in the way they could with an EU-based company.

In the UK, two parliamentary committees and the British Medical Association are calling on the government to exit the contract before the break clause in  2027. 

Poland is not the first European country Palantir has approached, but other allied nations  have already drawn the line.

In Switzerland, the Swiss armed forces rejected Palantir’s offers nine times. The military’s conclusion was that it was technically impossible to guarantee that  sensitive national data would not reach American intelligence services.

When a Swiss  investigative outlet reported on this, Palantir sued them and lost on 22 of 23 counts. In Germany, the Bundeswehr explicitly excluded Palantir from a military cloud procurement on  grounds of data sovereignty, with senior military officials stating that granting external  industry employees’ access to the national database was completely unacceptable. 

Poland is now preparing to deepen its cooperation with a company that the Swiss and German militaries both rejected on security and sovereignty grounds.

It is our children who  will have to face the long-term consequences of today’s decisions. I have seen what happens when people in the United Kingdom did not ask questions until it was too late, and I cannot stay silent and watch exactly the same thing happen in Poland.

If you care about data sovereignty, public transparency, and protecting the next generation,  join us at the public protest against Palantir’s contracts in Poland, organised by Nasze Dane, on 8 November at Plac Konstytucji in Warsaw at 3pm.

Unions and left-wing groups plan further demonstrations in November, calling for the release of opposition figure Luisa González.

---

Nearly 100 people marched through Ecuador’s capital, Quito, on Thursday to protest President Daniel Noboa’s government, launching a new wave of demonstrations ahead of local elections scheduled for Nov. 29.

RELATED: Ecuador Readies Snap Regional Elections Amid Opposition Exclusion Accusations

Organized by the country’s main trade unions and left-wing political parties, the peaceful march moved through the historic center before reaching the attorney general’s office. Protesters gathered outside the building carrying banners demanding the release of Luisa González, a former presidential candidate and one of the leading opposition figures.

González, who belongs to the political movement associated with former President Rafael Correa, was placed in pretrial detention in a case involving alleged money laundering. Prosecutors accuse her of involvement in the irregular financing of her first presidential campaign in 2023.

Chanting “Out, Noboa, out,” demonstrators also called for improvements to public education and healthcare. Some participants urged voters to cast null ballots in the upcoming local elections.

Natasha Rojas, a politician and activist, described the mobilization as a defense of democracy, civil liberties and the rights of Ecuadorians. She argued that the government was losing public support and warned that its policies would fuel further protests.

Nelson Erazo, president of the Popular Front, accused state institutions, including the attorney general’s office and the comptroller’s office, of being used to target social activists and political leaders.

He said the demonstration brought together groups seeking political change and demanding that Ecuadorians be able to express themselves freely, with guarantees of access to education, healthcare and employment.

Opposition organizations have announced further demonstrations on Nov. 7 and 15, followed by a march alongside feminist groups on Nov. 25 to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Another mobilization is planned for Dec. 10, in coordination with international organizations, to defend human rights.

Youth-led demonstrations across Europe are bringing together concerns about housing, education, employment and political accountability. Although the movements differ considerably between countries, their emergence reflects growing dissatisfaction among younger Europeans over economic prospects and their influence on political decisions.

A series of demonstrations involving young people across Europe has developed into a wider political phenomenon, as students and younger workers challenge governments over living costs, public services and their expectations for the future.

Protests have taken place in France, Belgium, Italy, Albania and several other countries, while a student-led movement in Serbia has achieved a particularly consequential political outcome.

In Serbia, nearly two years of demonstrations culminated in a parliamentary election victory for a student-backed political movement, ending the electoral dominance of President Aleksandar Vučić’s Serbian Progressive Party.

The outcome, reported by Reuters on 29 October, has given the movement a prospective parliamentary majority, although final certification of the election results remains outstanding.

Elsewhere, protesters have secured fewer immediate political concessions.

Nevertheless, their campaigns share a recurring concern: that conventional channels of political representation have failed to address problems affecting younger generations.

Economic Pressures Behind the Demonstrations

The grievances vary between countries, but housing affordability, insecure employment, education funding and living costs feature prominently.

A European Parliament youth survey published in February 2025 found that 40 per cent of respondents aged 16 to 30 considered rising prices and the cost of living a priority for the EU.

Almost one-third identified economic conditions and job creation as a principal concern, while education also ranked prominently.

More recent figures illustrate the financial pressures confronting younger Europeans.

According to Eurostat data published in June 2026, 24.2 per cent of EU residents aged 15 to 29 were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2025.

That compares with 20.9 per cent for the population as a whole.

These figures do not establish that economic hardship is the cause of every protest. They do, however, provide context for the dissatisfaction expressed by participants.

Belgium’s Students Demand Better Education

In Brussels, demonstrations have focused partly on the condition of schools and the availability of educational resources.

Students have criticised deteriorating facilities, shortages of teachers and government decisions affecting education funding.

Nineteen-year-old student Maya Gourdel told Reuters that peaceful attempts to draw attention to these concerns had attracted little response from political leaders.

Her account reflects a wider frustration among demonstrators who believe that public attention has increased only after protests became more disruptive.

Belgium’s education system is organised primarily at community level, meaning decisions concerning funding, staffing and school infrastructure are divided among different authorities.

The demands of protesters consequently involve both national political debates and decisions taken by regional and community institutions.

France and Italy Face Wider Social Unrest

In France, demonstrations concerning the cost of living and public services have involved students alongside trade unions and other organisations.

Recent protests have also been accompanied by violence, including attacks on commercial premises and confrontations with police.

The involvement of younger demonstrators does not mean that every participant supports violent tactics.

Rather, the events illustrate how movements with economic and political grievances can encompass groups with different objectives and methods.

Italy has experienced similar tensions, particularly in Milan, where demonstrations against rising living costs have followed earlier episodes of unrest.

The Italian government has faced pressure over household expenditure, wages and the affordability of essential services.

These disputes have developed against a background of high energy prices and concerns about the broader economic outlook.

Albania’s Frustration With Political Institutions

In Albania, student-led protests have challenged Prime Minister Edi Rama’s government over alleged corruption, limited employment opportunities and education standards.

Demonstrations that began in Tirana have spread to other cities.

On 29 October, opposition lawmakers disrupted proceedings in parliament following weeks of protests and confrontations between demonstrators and police.

The government has offered measures intended to address economic concerns while condemning violence associated with the demonstrations.

For many younger Albanians, employment prospects are closely connected to the possibility of emigrating.

The perception that professional opportunities depend on political connections or personal networks has become another source of dissatisfaction.

However, the Albanian movement cannot be treated as identical to protests in EU member states, given the country’s different economic conditions and political institutions.

Serbia Shows the Political Potential of Student Movements

Serbia provides the most substantial example of youth-led protest translating into electoral change.

The movement emerged after the collapse of a railway station canopy in Novi Sad in November 2024, which killed 16 people and prompted allegations of corruption and negligence.

Students organised prolonged demonstrations demanding accountability and institutional reform.

Their campaign subsequently developed into an electoral challenge to the governing Serbian Progressive Party.

Preliminary results from the October 2026 parliamentary election indicate that the student-backed list has secured a majority of seats.

However, electoral certification and the formation of a new government remain incomplete.

The movement now faces a different challenge: converting protest demands into administrative decisions, legislation and economic policy.

Its success will be judged not only by the election result but also by its ability to govern.

A Generational Shift, But Not a Single Movement

It would be misleading to describe Europe’s demonstrations as a unified political campaign.

Participants have different objectives, national circumstances and ideological positions.

Some demand increased public expenditure, while others concentrate on corruption, political accountability or employment opportunities.

What connects them is a recurring concern about whether established institutions respond adequately to younger citizens.

The political consequences will depend on whether demonstrations produce lasting organisations, influence elections or secure changes in government policy.

Serbia suggests that student mobilisation can translate into substantial political change.

For governments elsewhere in Europe, the question is whether the grievances driving these movements can be addressed through existing political institutions before dissatisfaction generates further unrest.

Opposition lawmakers in Albania disrupted a parliamentary session on Thursday by setting off flares that filled the chamber with colored smoke, marking an escalation following weeks of student-led anti-government protests.

Members of the main opposition Democratic Party also blocked access to the podium during a vote on a central bank bill, Reuters reported.

"These ruling lawmakers are criminals, and they deserve tear gas, rubber bullets, cracked skulls, and broken bones—not the young people," opposition leader Sali Berisha declared during a speech before his microphone was cut off.

SERBIA’S STUDENT MOVEMENT TOPPLES VUCIC’S PARTY AFTER 14 YEARS, BUT POLITICAL AGENDA REMAINS UNCLEAR

As the chamber devolved into chaos, fellow opposition members surrounded Berisha, holding blue flares, the official color of their party, and displaying images of protesters injured by police rubber bullets.

Albania has been gripped in recent weeks by student-led demonstrations demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama over alleged government corruption, underfunded schools, widespread unemployment, and a lack of economic opportunities.

SERBIA’S LONGTIME LEADER FACES BIGGEST POLITICAL TEST AS STUDENTS MOUNT ELECTION CHALLENGE

The protests began on Oct. 13 and quickly turned violent as demonstrators clashed with police and set fire to government buildings. Protesters also targeted Rama’s ruling Socialist Party headquarters in Tirana, clashing with riot police deployed to protect the property.

The unrest has since spread to several other cities across the country.

THOUSANDS FLOOD BRUSSELS STREETS AS ANTI-AUSTERITY PROTESTS ERUPT INTO CLASHES WITH POLICE

In response, Rama, who has governed since 2013 and secured a fourth term last year, blamed "foreign hands who do not want Albania in the European Union. " He accused outside forces of manipulating the movement, claiming they "represent organized crime rather than students. "

To curb the violence, Rama introduced strict new measures, including $6,000 fines for anyone participating in a protest that turns violent, regardless of whether they personally commit acts of violence.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Another demonstration is scheduled for Saturday.

Fox News Digital's Chris Massaro contributed to this report. 

French Interior Minister Laurent Nunez said that this Saturday was looking like “a very high risk” day for public order and that he would again deploy 70,000 security forces to try to safeguard the country.

Nunez told reporters on Thursday that several radical groups had called on social media for violent gatherings that day, which is also Halloween, and that the response of security forces would be “extremely firm.”

He highlighted the risk of disorder on Saturday evening in particular once more mainstream demonstrations had ended.

“We are seeing many calls for rallies coming from the labor movement, the radicalized far left, and certain radicalized ‘Yellow Vests’ websites, urging people to attend rallies on public streets starting at 8:00 p.m. (on October 31) in many cities across France, accompanied by various messages which are, let’s just, say quite radical,” he said.

“October 31 is a day that poses a very high risk to public order,” he added.

The Interior Ministry has said 410,000 people took part in marches last Saturday when authorities deployed 70,000 police, helping to avert a repeat of the looting and vandalism that swept many cities on October 17.

Labour leaders and students have urged further protests on October 31 and a nationwide strike on November 5, saying frustration over wages, living costs and public services was spreading far beyond the student movement that first mobilised last month.

Charles Barkley did not appreciate seeing LeBron James practicing his golf swing on the court during the middle of the national anthem ahead of his Philadelphia 76ers debut earlier this month.

President Donald Trump blasted James after the incident, calling him a "total disgrace," and while Barkley made it a point to say he doesn't care what the President has to say about anything, the two see eye to eye when it comes to James disrespecting the anthem.

"I don’t pay what President Trump says any attention, first and foremost, at all," Barkley began when asked about the moment on SiriusXM NBA Radio. "But I thought that was very disrespectful, practicing your golf swing in the middle of the anthem. I always stand for the anthem. I just think it’s important. We live in the greatest country ever where you can always protest, but I think you have to be very careful with the anthem."

LEBRON JAMES CURSES OUT KNICKS FAN IN HEATED EXCHANGE: 'I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE F--- YOU TALKING ABOUT'

This is not the first time James has decided that the middle of the national anthem was an opportune time to work on his golf swing.

Last Christmas, while playing for the Los Angeles Lakers, James got in a few practice swings ahead of his team's eventual loss to the Houston Rockets.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

While Barkley mentioned always being allowed to protest, it doesn't appear that James was protesting anything in this instance, but instead simply not being able to stand still and disrespecting the anthem in the process.

"I look at it, I'm supporting the troops when I stand for the national anthem," Barkley continued. "I'm standing there for free speech, so even though I believe in free speech, I think you have to be very careful with the anthem. I always stand for the anthem. I think it's important, and I think it's significant."

James' faux golf swings in the middle of the anthem have understandably drawn attention and criticism, but perhaps the most disrespectful stunt he's pulled during 'The Star-Spangled Banner' came back in 2023.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

As a late arrival to his courtside seats at USC to watch his son, Bronny James, play for the Trojans, LeBron made his entrance during the middle of the anthem, with a hat on, and sat in his seat while the rest of the arena was standing and showing respect to the United States.

Heiress Harris, the 10-year-old daughter of rapper T.I., sang the national anthem before Thursday's Game 6 of the WNBA Finals at State Farm Arena. But, as has been the case all series, the players weren't on the court for the performance.

Both the Atlanta Dream and Golden State Valkyries left the floor just before the young Black singer began "The Star-Spangled Banner," marking their sixth straight absence for the anthem in this series.

OutKick interviewed fans outside State Farm Arena prior to Game 6. They offered different views on the practice, with some wanting players on the floor and others defending their choice to leave.

THE CRAIG CARTON SHOW–UNFILTERED, UNAPOLOGETIC AND UNMISSABLE. DOWNLOAD HIS DAILY PODCAST NOW!

One defender of the practice was the father of Golden State guard Tiffany Hayes.

"This is America, by the way, and I’ve served this country, so they can choose what they want," Renard Hayes told OutKick.

Asked whether, as a veteran, he had an issue with the absences, he said he did not.

"I don’t have an issue with it because it’s not a disrespect of the flag," he said.

Hayes’ father, who said he lives in Florida, had criticized the game’s 12:30 p.m. start, blaming the league and Atlanta organization for the scheduling situation. On the anthem, however, he defended the players’ freedom to decide.

The game was moved from its originally scheduled 8 p.m. start to accommodate a doubleheader with the NBA’s Atlanta Hawks at State Farm Arena. Golden State entered Thursday leading the best-of-seven series 3–2 after winning Monday’s Game 5, 64–55, with a chance to clinch its first championship.

Some fans want players on the court, while others defend their choice

One Dream fan told OutKick she believed everyone should stand for the national anthem.

A male Valkyries fan said he respected the players’ opinions and beliefs but wanted them on the floor.

VANCE CONDEMNS 'DISGRACEFUL' WNBA NATIONAL ANTHEM WALKOUTS, SAYS PLAYERS SHOULD SHOW MORE GRATITUDE

"I do think they should be out there," he said.

Other fans were less troubled by the absences.

"They’ve been doing it for years," another Dream fan said. "And that’s their choice. It is what it is."

A woman who said she represents Valkyries center Kiah Stokes offered a similar view.

"I think it’s their decision," the representative said.

For one man attending with a female Dream fan, the question was more complicated. Asked whether he considered the absences disrespectful, he said, "Me personally, maybe a little bit."

OUTKICK READERS BLAST WNBA PLAYERS FOR HIDING DURING FINALS NATIONAL ANTHEM

"But it doesn’t concern me that much either," he added. "Not particularly bothered by it."

Another Dream fan attending with his family said he respected the anthem and the players’ ability to decide whether to participate.

"But we live in a country where you have a choice, so I gotta respect it," he said.

Players and coaches say skipping anthem is a pregame routine

During media availability in Atlanta on Oct. 23, Golden State coach Natalie Nakase described the absences as part of the team’s pregame routine.

Those interviews were OutKick’s first opportunity to ask the anthem questions directly after attending all 13 formal press conferences during the first three games without being called on.

"We’re two years in," Nakase said. "That’s been part of our pregame."

Asked who established the routine and why, she said, "I really don’t know."

OutKick followed up: "What do you do during those 90 seconds that you’re off the court?"

"I’m with my staff, so I’m focused on my plays," Nakase said.

Golden State’s public relations staff then moved to the next reporter. OutKick did not get an opportunity to ask why those preparations needed to happen during the anthem rather than before or afterward.

Valkyries forward Gabby Williams denied that the team’s absence was a protest.

"No," she said.

Asked why the team was off the floor, Williams responded: "That’s been the routine for like, seven years now."

An Atlanta public relations representative moved to the next question after Dream coach Karl Smesko declined to explain his team’s absences.

"We’re just kind of focused on the Finals," Smesko said.

Asked whether he had any further comment about the anthem and his team’s absences, he said, "No."

Dream guard Rhyne Howard was asked about calls to exclude players from Team USA over their anthem conduct during the WNBA season.

Howard said she did not think she had been on the court for the anthem at any point during her tenure in Atlanta. She also defended her commitment to representing the United States internationally.

"When I go put on USA jersey I’m out for the national anthem every time, there’s no doubt about it," Howard said.

OutKick asked Howard why she was not on the court for the anthem with the Dream.

Howard and an Atlanta public relations representative both responded, "Next question."

WNBA policy and team decisions remain questions

CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE

The WNBA’s 2026 official rulebook says players, coaches and trainers are to "stand and line up in a dignified posture" along the sidelines or on the foul line during the national anthem.

The Associated Press reported Oct. 20 that the league suspended its anthem protocols in 2017. The provision remains in the 2026 rulebook.

OutKick has asked the WNBA to clarify its current requirements and enforcement, whether discipline is planned or under consideration, and whether teams have received instructions about being on the floor.

The inquiries to the WNBA and both teams began after Game 1 on Oct. 17, with follow-ups Oct. 18 and Oct. 20. OutKick also contacted the NBA league office on Oct. 20 about its role in the matter.

OutKick has also asked Atlanta to confirm an arena employee’s account that Dream players stand in a hallway after leaving the floor before games, including whether they remain there during the anthem.

During Game 4, I attempted to observe what Atlanta’s players do after leaving the court. Arena staff said my credential did not grant access to that area and escorted me to my assigned media seat.

The WNBA, NBA and both teams’ front offices have not responded to OutKick’s emailed requests for comment about the anthem absences. The player and coach responses came during media availability.

OUTKICK IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE FOX NEWS APP: CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD

Six games into the Finals, fans disagree about whether the players should be on the court for the anthem. The teams still haven’t explained why their preparations require leaving it.

The Open Letter that began earlier this week as a result of police baton charges on ‘right to housing’ protesters has been delivered to President Seguro today. The missive, which

The post Open Letter defending right to demonstrate delivered to President Seguro appeared first on Portugal Resident.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni bluntly branded a Milan judge's decision to release Youssef Siher, the alleged organizer of the recent violent riots in the city as a "shameful" decision.

The post Meloni Condemns ‘Shameful’ Release of Alleged Organizer of Milan Riots appeared first on Breitbart.

The Acampada Lisboa movement (Lisbon Camp) approved, at a public assembly last night, the holding of a new demonstration on Saturday between Marquês de Pombal and Rossio, followed by a

The post Lisbon housing protesters approve new demonstration on Saturday appeared first on Portugal Resident.

The Police Professionals’ Trade Union Association (ASPP/PSP) and the Guard Professionals’ Association (APG/GNR) are holding a demonstration in Lisbon today to demand salary increases, career restructuring and improvements in working

The post PSP, GNR police demonstrate in Lisbon for salary increases appeared first on Portugal Resident.

Anti-gun and anti-ICE radicals are breaking laws and quite literally leaving their mark on New York City.

A group of anti-ICE menaces blocked entrances to New York City's Brooklyn Bridge on Wednesday, causing bumper-to-bumper traffic.

Meanwhile, one man is facing charges for allegedly spray-painting over victims' names at the 9/11 memorial.

Both events happened this week in the Big Apple while city leaders have remained quiet on both issues.

MAMDANI DEMANDS TRUMP RELEASE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT SHOT BY ICE AGENT AS PROTESTS ERUPT IN THE BRONX

Brooklyn Bridge anti-ICE blockade

The anti-ICE crowd's demonstration was met with frustrated drivers – many of them commuting to work – who were stuck in the gridlock; drivers were seen on video pleading with agitators to gain access to the bridge.

MAMDANI MESSAGE TO RESIDENTS ON HOW TO DEAL WITH ICE RESULTS IN VIRAL INTERNET BACKLASH: 'TREASON'

One driver was heard saying, "I just want to get to work!"

The radicals were heard on megaphone shouting "NYPD, K-K-K, I-C-E, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!"

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS DEPORTATION OF DOMINICAN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT SHOT BY ICE DURING NYC ARREST ATTEMPT

One person shouted "Free Oscar Bergal!" in response to a recent ICE arrest of the illegal Dominican national that resulted in a shooting in Marble Hill, Manhattan, earlier this month.

Police eventually arrived to arrest and remove the people disrupting traffic.

FBI ARRESTS GEORGIA MAN ACCUSED OF THROWING MOLOTOV COCKTAIL AT ATLANTA ICE FACILITY

The bridge caused delays for about an hour when the group showed up at 12:30 in the afternoon, and were eventually arrested and removed by 1:30, according to ABC7.

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

The NYPD confirmed to Fox News Digital that 14 people were arrested and there were no reported injuries.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the mayor's office for comment.

9/11 Memorial vandalism

Port Authority Police confirmed to Fox News Digital that Johnathan Tijerina, 31, was arrested after he allegedly vandalized the 9/11 Memorial earlier this week.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB

On Monday, a message reading "just stop killing kids" was sprayed across several engraved names on the memorial.

WWII MEMORIAL VANDALISM SUSPECT IN CUSTODY, CHARGED WITH TWO FELONIES, PIRRO SAYS

SEND US A TIP

The suspect was seen in his own self-recorded video spray painting the memorial; his organization "Just Stop Killing Kids" shared the video.

GOT A TIP?

In another post the organization wrote:

LISTEN TO THE NEW 'CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO' PODCAST

"On October 26, 2026, Jon Tijerina was arrested for spraying red paint on Freedom Tower in NYC. He is demanding that Trump and Mamdani enforce common-sense, highly popular demands with respect to guns such as Universal Background Checks and a National Gun Registry."

GET BREAKING NEWS BY EMAIL

A spokesperson for the 9/11 Memorial & Museum told Fox News Digital that security personnel and law enforcement responded quickly and restored the affected area.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"The 9/11 Memorial is a sacred place of reflection at the heart of a rebuilt World Trade Center that honors the 2,983 victims killed in the September 11, 2001 and February 26, 1993 terrorist attacks," the spokesperson said in a statement. "This brief incident was swiftly addressed by security staff and law enforcement, and the impacted area was immediately restored to its commemorative state."

"I am very concerned about the weaponization of the Justice Department," Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) told reporters in August, explaining his reservations about voting to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general. Cassidy specifically cited the attempt to prosecute Cassidy Hutchinson, a White House aide during President Donald Trump's first term, based on her 2022 testimony before the House select committee that investigated the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. "I'm told there is a grand jury being empaneled to investigate her," Cassidy said. "Why? Tell me that. Shouldn't every American be afraid of the weaponization of the Justice Department?"

Grand jurors in Washington, D.C., who on Tuesday declined to approve an indictment of Hutchinson, apparently shared the senator's concerns about the case against her. That setback is part of a pattern: Grand juries, which historically have almost never rejected charges proposed by federal prosecutors, have done so repeatedly during the last two years, reflecting the Trump administration's tendency to pursue politically motivated cases based on inadequate evidence.

A grand jury hears only the government's side of a case, and the probable cause standard for approving an indictment, which requires reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and that the person identified by prosecutors committed the crime, is much less demanding than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a conviction. But the Justice Department's manual for prosecutors says they should not pursue criminal charges unless "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient" to meet the latter test. It is a pretty striking indication that prosecutors are disregarding that injunction when a grand jury determines that they have failed to meet the minimal burden of establishing probable cause.

Hutchinson, who at the time of the Capitol riot was White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' principal assistant, delivered the testimony at the center of the failed indictment on June 28, 2022. She described Trump as unconcerned about weapons carried by some of the people who attended the speech he delivered the day of the riot, during which he reiterated his false claim that Joe Biden had stolen the 2020 presidential election and urged his supporters to "fight like hell" against congressional ratification of his victory.

Hutchinson said Trump wanted the Secret Service to stop screening rally participants with magnetometers because he was worried it would reduce the size of the crowd. "I don't effing care that they have weapons," Trump said, according to Hutchinson's approximate recollection. "They're not here to hurt me. Take [the] effing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in."

Hutchinson also said Trump was irate when the Secret Service told him he could not join the protesters at the Capitol. That much was consistent with the testimony of other witnesses. But Hutchinson added disputed details, saying Deputy Chief of Staff Tony Ornato had told her Trump was so angry that he "lunge[d] towards Bobby Engel," the head of his protective detail, and "reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel." The Secret Service agent who was Trump's driver that day contradicted Hutchinson's account, and Ornato said he had no recollection of any such incident.

Last March, Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R–Ga.) and Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) urged the Justice Department to prosecute Hutchinson for lying to Congress. "Hutchinson's potential prosecution became a point of controversy between lawmakers and employees of the Justice Department," CNN reports. "Some inside the department believed there was not enough evidence to bring a viable criminal case."

You would expect such a case to be handled by Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. But the investigation of Hutchinson was instead conducted by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which is run by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, another Trump loyalist.

You might wonder what scrutinizing Hutchinson's testimony had to do with "protecting the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans," which is how Dhillon's division describes its mission. Dhillon's involvement is all the more puzzling given that Pirro previously had not hesitated to pursue dubious charges against the president's enemies.

Last February, Pirro sought an indictment of six Democratic members of Congress who appeared in a November 2025 video that reminded U.S. military personnel of their duty to "refuse illegal orders." Trump condemned that message as "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL," saying the lawmakers "should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL." But as a federal judge later noted, the allegedly criminal video was "unquestionably protected" by the First Amendment.

That did not deter Pirro from trying to deliver on her boss's threat. But as in Hutchinson's case, the grand jury apparently was not willing to participate in Trump's vendetta. After it unanimously refused to approve the indictment, Pirro gave up.

That embarrassing experience may have deterred Pirro from getting involved in Hutchinson's case, especially if she thought there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction. She would have had good reasons for reaching that conclusion.

It is not clear exactly what charges the grand jury rejected this week. But the most obviously relevant statutes are 18 USC 1001, which covers false statements "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch," and 18 USC 1621, which covers false testimony under oath. Both are felonies punishable by up to five years in prison. But a conviction under Section 1001 requires proving that the defendant "knowingly and willfully" made a "materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement," and the perjury statute applies only when a sworn witness "willfully and contrary to such oath" makes a "material" statement that "he does not believe to be true."

Those elements would have been hard to satisfy in Hutchinson's case. Her testimony about Trump's insouciant attitude toward weapons carried by his supporters was based on what she said she heard him say, an account that pits her word against that of a habitually dishonest politician whose speech that same day was full of misrepresentations. And even if her recollection of Trump's comments was not fully accurate, that does not necessarily mean she intentionally gave false testimony. The same goes for the alleged lunging-and-grabbing incident, an account Hutchinson said was based on a conversation with Ornato that he says he does not recall.

Maybe Hutchinson, who had a lawyer and was surely aware of the potential penalties for lying to Congress, nevertheless fabricated both of those claims. But assuming her testimony was inaccurate, it seems more likely that she misremembered or misconstrued what Trump and Ornato said. In any event, the task of proving the first proposition beyond a reasonable doubt would give pause to any reasonably cautious prosecutor. And the grand jurors, even without the benefit of hearing a rebuttal to the government's case, thought the evidence of deliberate deception was so weak that it fell short of probable cause.

That determination is just the latest in a series of similar rebukes. In addition to the rejection of Pirro's charges against the "Seditious Six," they include the attempt to prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud, which two separate grand juries in two different Virginia cities blocked last December.

Grand jurors also have stood athwart felony prosecutions of protesters in Washington, D.C., including Sean Dunn, the guy who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer, and Sydney Reid, who allegedly interfered with immigration arrests while using her phone to record them. In the latter case, Reason's Joe Lancaster noted, prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a felony assault indictment "not once, not twice, but a staggering three times." Reid was ultimately acquitted of a misdemeanor charge.

In the summer of 2025, federal grand juries approved just seven of 38 proposed felony indictments against protesters in Los Angeles, an amazingly bad track record. A few months later, federal prosecutors dropped assault charges against two Chicago protesters after a grand jury declined to indict them.

"For decades, federal grand juries have almost never said no," Ballard Spahr attorneys Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. and Brad Gershel noted last year. In 2016, for example, grand juries declined to approve federal indictments just 0.004 percent of the time. "That dynamic is now being tested," Hockeimer and Gershel added. "As the DOJ has adopted a more assertive charging posture in politically sensitive cases, grand juries appear to be reasserting their independence."

The post The Failed Indictment of Cassidy Hutchinson Reflects Grand Jury Resistance to Politically Motivated Charges appeared first on Reason Magazine.