By Luisa Bosisio Fazzi, Board member of the European Disability Forum representing the Italian Disability Forum
On 4 May, Eurostat published an article presenting the results of a survey exploring perceptions of discrimination among persons with disabilities.
In summary, the results for the year 2024:
In 2024, 9.4% of persons with disabilities (with activity limitations) aged 16 or over in the EU felt they had been discriminated against in their dealings with administrative offices or public services, a figure more than double that recorded among persons without disabilities (4.0%).
When looking for accommodation, 8.2% of persons with disabilities reported having experienced discrimination, compared with 5.2% of persons without disabilities.
Similarly, in public spaces and educational establishments, a higher proportion of persons with disabilities reported feeling discriminated against compared to persons without disabilities: 5.0% versus 3.0% in public places and 4.1% versus 2.3% in educational establishments.
The highest rates of perceived discrimination among persons with disabilities in public spaces are found in Estonia and Spain.
At the national level, in all EU countries, the proportion of persons with disabilities who felt discriminated against in administrative offices and public services was higher than that of persons without disabilities.
In 2024, the highest rates were recorded in Estonia (14.6%) and Spain (14.5%). Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden followed with 12.8%, 12.5% and 12.3% respectively. The lowest rates were recorded in Cyprus and Italy (both at 3.1%), Croatia (4.3%), and Hungary (4.5%).
As the survey does not measure ‘actual’ discrimination but rather that perceived by respondents, the lowest rates recorded in Cyprus and Italy suggest that in these countries, the perception of discrimination among persons with disabilities is lower.
In this survey, the questions asked were of the type: “In the last 12 months, have you personally felt discriminated against…?”
The contexts considered were specific:
-
- Administrative offices and public services
- Looking for accommodation (last 5 years)
- Public spaces
- Educational institutions
Furthermore, the definition of disability used a limitation in everyday activities for at least 6 months (self-reported), rather than a clinical diagnosis. This methodological choice means that not all persons with disabilities are included and that not all instances of discrimination are detected.
These figures ask: “How many people say they have felt discriminated against in these contexts?”.
Not: “How much objective discrimination exists in the country?”.
According to this survey, Italy appears to be ‘virtuous’ (3.1%). We, as persons with disabilities and the disability movement, know that it is not. The Shadow Reports to the various UN Committees and other international treaties, drafted by various specific working groups and coordinated by the Italian Disability Forum (FID), describe in detail the reality of discrimination and the violation of the human rights of Italian citizens with disabilities.
From this survey, Italy appears wonderful……without being so at all. Let’s look at the details
The Eurostat article states that Italy and Cyprus have the lowest proportions of persons with disabilities reporting discrimination in public offices/services (3.1%). This does not mean that:
- discrimination is low in Italy;
- services are inclusive;
- persons with disabilities are respected.
It simply means that few people report having felt discriminated against.
And this is where factors come into play that would be worth exploring further.
The structural limitations of ‘self-perceived discrimination’.
Eurostat itself admits this in its methodological notes: subjective perception is influenced by various factors, including:
- Awareness of one’s rights. If I do not know that I am entitled to accessibility, augmentative and alternative communication, or reasonable accommodation, I may experience a violation as “bad luck”, “normal”, or “it’s like that for everyone”, rather than as discrimination.
- Internalised expectations. If I expect to be treated badly, or not to be taken into account, I may not label this as “discrimination”, but as “life is hard”.
- Cultural and social context. In contexts where discrimination is normalised, the word “discrimination” is rarely used, or only in extreme cases (insults, explicit violence), not for structural barriers, infantilisation or silent exclusion.
- Fear of speaking out or distrust of institutions. If I don’t believe it serves any purpose to speak out, or if I fear the consequences, I may downplay or deny it.
So, a country can have a great deal of actual discrimination and very little perceived or reported discrimination.
I would like to put forward some hypotheses regarding Italy, a country I know well, and the reality I have been exploring for years: that of women with disabilities
Hypothesis 1: Normalisation of barriers
- Architectural, communication and organisational barriers are so widespread that they become ‘the backdrop’.
- If I never enter certain spaces, I do not even get to experience the discriminatory incident in that specific context (e.g. public offices, universities, certain services).
Hypothesis 2: The role of the family and the privatisation of the problem
- Many persons with disabilities are ‘represented’ by their family:
- It is the family member who goes to the counter, who speaks to the doctor, who fills in the forms.
- The person with a disability is less directly exposed to contact with the institution, and therefore less likely to perceive and report discrimination first-hand.
- This results in an under-representation of direct experience.
Hypothesis 3: Language and awareness of rights
- The language of rights (discrimination, reasonable accommodation, institutional violence, sexual and domestic violence, reproductive health, violation of legal capacity…) is still not widely used.
- Many women with disabilities lack the tools to recognise discrimination:
- the denial of a choice regarding their own reproductive health;
- the lack of accessible information;
- the systematic substitution of their consent with that of family members or care workers.
Hypothesis 4: Limited trust in institutions and investigations
- In a climate of mistrust, it is common to respond in a ‘cautious’, non-confrontational manner.
- Or: the usefulness of reporting discrimination in a statistical questionnaire is not recognised.
Hypothesis 5: The “it’s not discrimination, it’s bureaucracy” effect
- Many experiences of discrimination are interpreted as “bureaucracy that doesn’t work”, “staff shortages”, “cuts”, rather than as a violation of rights linked to disability.
But then what does the survey miss?
If we limit this survey to the situation of girls and women with disabilities:
- does not address gender-based violence, domestic violence or institutional violence;
- it does not look at legal capacity, informed consent or substitute decision-making;
- does not directly address sexual and reproductive rights (forced sterilisation, denied or imposed abortion/contraception, obstacles to motherhood);
- it does not address intersectional discrimination (being a woman, with a disability, perhaps a migrant, poor, etc.).
Therefore, based on our experiences as citizens with disabilities, these figures are:
- partial,
- potentially misleading if read out of context,
but also useful to critically ‘turn on their head’.
An interpretation that starts from the lived experiences of persons with disabilities, including children, young people, girls, and women with disabilities, and which, rather than rejecting these figures, uses them to refute this self-exculpatory narrative.
In concrete terms, we can state that:
- According to Eurostat, Italy is among the countries where persons with disabilities perceive the least discrimination in public offices. This does not mean that discrimination does not exist. It means that it is not recognised, named or reported.”
- The low figure for Italy is an indicator of under-recognition and under-reporting, not of genuine inclusion.”
- “If women with disabilities do not identify the denial of consent, the overriding of their decisions, sexual and domestic violence, and forced sterilisation as discrimination, then official statistics will tell us that ‘everything is fine’.”
In conclusion:
Eurostat data show that in Italy, only a small proportion of persons with disabilities report having experienced discrimination in public services. This does not indicate a genuine level of inclusion, but rather a low level of recognition and a poor perception of discrimination.
In a context where barriers, exclusion, and decision-making by proxy are often normalised, many violations are not perceived as such. A lack of awareness of rights, family mediation, mistrust of institutions and the absence of accessible tools for reporting abuse contribute to a high level of under-reporting. For this reason, data on perceived discrimination cannot be interpreted as evidence of an inclusive system: on the contrary, they highlight the need to strengthen a culture of rights, particularly for women with disabilities, whose experiences of discrimination and violence often remain invisible in official statistics.
In short:
If we look only at perception data, Italy seems like a wonderful country. If we listen to women and men with disabilities, we discover a different story.
A clear example of statistical gaslighting.