The General Directorate of Disability Rights handed over this Friday to the General Staff. Investigation “Mocking Podemos candidate” for mayor of Valencia, Pilar LimaSources from the 2030 Agenda this Tuesday, led by Minister Ione Belarra, secretary general of the Ministry of Social Rights and Podemos, reported in the program “El Hormiguero”.
The host of the show asked Pablo Motos, “What requirements must a candidate meet, regardless of party, to be accepted?” Comedian Miguel Lago replied with a laugh: “Deaf. Coming from Valencia, says Irene Montero, is the best candidate: deaf, lesbian”. “As all else goes, start craving: ‘And here’s this lame we brought’”, he added.
Pilar Lima explores legal action against “El hormiguero” because of what Pablo Motos and Miguel Lago say
In his letter to the prosecutor’s office, The Directorate General emphasizes that these comments “constitute an attack on the right to equality and non-discrimination” and undermine the development of people with disabilities by reinforcing stereotypes and prejudices that affect their lives.
They argue that it is plainly absurd to suggest that a person with a disability, whether because of deafness or mobility differences, is unfit to perform duties associated with a political position for which they were elected. Such remarks are seen as a direct affront to basic rights and equal opportunity.
The Ministry cites several legal pillars as foundations for action. These include articles from the Constitution, the General Law on Audiovisual Communications, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Law on Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination. The Royal Board on Disability has also filed a formal complaint against the show, contending that freedoms have limits when the rights of others are harmed. A public statement on its official social media affirmed that the organization will not overlook actions that stigmatize and ridicule people with disabilities [Source: national and regional accountability bodies].
Legal experts emphasize that comments framing disability as an obstacle to political capability may violate anti-discrimination protections and could justify measures to safeguard civic participation for all citizens. The case highlights the ongoing tension between freedom of expression in media programming and the obligation to prevent harmful stereotypes that undermine equal opportunity. Advocacy groups point out that inclusive discourse strengthens public trust and broad participation in civic life. Critics, meanwhile, warn that sensational or provocative remarks can have lasting social consequences for people who live with disability in daily contexts, from education to employment and public services. The broader dialogue also touches on how entertainment platforms handle complaints regarding content that targets protected groups. In this context, the request is for accountability, not suppression of humor, with a call for editorial responsibility and respect for dignity in public discourse [Attribution: civil rights authorities and advocacy organizations].
Observers note that the case could set a precedent for how entertainment programs address sensitive topics while maintaining creative freedom. If formal channels proceed, authorities may seek remedies that reinforce non-discrimination norms without censoring legitimate satire, ensuring that public figures and media outlets engage with audiences in ways that do not degrade certain groups. The discussion also underscores the importance of informed dialogue that distinguishes between opinion and the propagation of harmful stereotypes. For now, the parties await procedural steps to determine whether any legal violation occurred and what redress, if any, could be appropriate. Representation from disability rights advocates remains active in monitoring developments and promoting messages of inclusion in public life [Cited reports from government and advocacy bodies].