Van Langenhove Convicted: When Truth Becomes Hate Speech

A ruling in Belgium has sharpened Europe’s debate over free speech, migration and hate speech. Former MP and right-wing activist Dries Van Langenhove has been fined €4,000 (about $4,600). The case concerned a lecture critical of mass immigration that he gave at the Catholic University of Leuven in February 2024.

The case would be remarkable in itself, touching on several of today’s most sensitive issues: universities, migration, anti-racism law and political speech. But its real significance lies in the court’s reasoning. According to excerpts of the judgment published by Van Langenhove, the decisive issue was not whether his statements were false, but how he was said to have presented facts.

That raises a fundamental question: when is political analysis still protected opinion, and when does it become criminal incitement? The Belgian case shows how blurred that line can become once the focus shifts from concrete appeals to the possible effects of a statement.

You might be interested “Prejudice Crime” as a New Weapon Against Free Speech

The Leuven Lecture

Van Langenhove, a Flemish former member of the Belgian parliament, appeared at the Catholic University of Leuven in February 2024. He had been invited by a nationalist student association. According to the prosecution, the event became a political lecture on mass immigration, housing shortages, falling education standards, crime and so-called superdiversity.

Van Langenhove said he relied on official statistics, published studies and scientific data. Among other issues, he addressed group differences and the overrepresentation of certain groups in crime statistics. His critics saw this not as legitimate social and political analysis, but as a racist portrayal that could disparage whole groups on the basis of origin, skin color or nationality.

The University itself and Unia, Belgium’s state-funded anti-discrimination body, were among those that pursued the case against him. Both relied on Belgium’s 1981 Anti-Racism Act. He was accused of inciting hatred or violence against protected groups and of spreading ideas based on racial hatred or racial superiority.

The court has now found him guilty on two of three charges. Van Langenhove said the legal battle had already cost him more than €420,000 ($488,000).

The Court’s Key Reasoning

The fine is not the heart of the case. What matters is the logic behind the judgment. Van Langenhove published two paragraphs on X which he said came from the ruling and which he described as central.

The first, according to his translation, reads: "Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged with presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against persons on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law.”

https://twitter.com/DVanLangenhove/status/2059629345031745600

The second paragraph goes further: "For Van Langenhove to have committed a crime, it is not necessary for him to have incited concrete acts of hate or violence. It suffices that others are incited to take on a general attitude of intolerance or disapproval regarding a group protected under the criteria of the Anti-Racism Law."

That shifts the standard. Whether a statement is demonstrably false is not decisive. Nor, according to this reasoning, is a direct call for violence required. A statement may already become criminal if it could encourage others to adopt a broadly hostile attitude towards a protected group.

That is where the case becomes explosive. Political speech almost always involves selection, emphasis and interpretation. Anyone who speaks about migration inevitably touches on schools, housing, crime, the welfare state and integration. Those who support their arguments with data may still reach conclusions that certain political or social groups dislike. If the likely effect of such conclusions becomes a criminal criterion, a central space for democratic debate comes under pressure.

You might be interested When Bible Verses End up in Court

Van Langenhove’s Warning

Van Langenhove regards the ruling as evidence of how dangerous hate speech laws can become. Writing on X, he said a person could go to jail for “inciting hatred” even if his statements were “100% factual” and even if he had not incited any concrete acts of hate.

In practice, he argued, the benchmark for incitement had become the mere potential to make someone adopt “a general attitude of disapproval regarding a protected group”. He drew a sweeping conclusion from that: “This means literally any criticism of mass migration is now a punishable offence.” If someone cites a statistic, and that statistic could lead another person to think less of a protected group, such as migrants, he warned, that person could be jailed.

Van Langenhove also argued that his defense had failed against that logic. The scientific studies cited in the lecture had been submitted to the court, but the judge had not considered them relevant. He also pointed out that hundreds of students from different political backgrounds had attended, that everyone had been able to voice an opinion or ask questions and that the event had passed calmly. None of that changed the outcome. The mere possibility of someone being incited to adopt a general attitude of disapproval was enough.

“I am telling you this to warn you that by the time these hate speech laws have come into place, it’s already too late”, he wrote. “You will NEVER be able to beat these laws in court. You have to stop them before they are implemented. Let my fate be your warning.”