A Belgian court has convicted right-wing activist Dries Van Langenhove of hate speech for a lecture in which he presented data and arguments about racial differences, migration and gender.
The Correctional Court of First Instance in Leuven ruled that Van Langenhove violated Belgium’s Anti-Racism Law and Gender Equality Law during a February 2024 lecture at KU Leuven, one of Flanders’ leading universities.
Van Langenhove was found guilty on two counts under Belgium’s 1981 Anti-Racism Law: Incitement to hatred or violence against a group on grounds of nationality, so-called race, skin colour, origin or ethnic descent (charge A), and dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred (charge C). He was acquitted on the gender-related charge (B).
The case stemmed from a two-hour lecture organised by the Nationalistische Studentenvereniging Leuven (NSV!) on the topic of “regenerative agriculture”.
In practice, Van Langenhove devoted most of the time to broader themes including multiculturalism, migration, the “great replacement”, crime statistics, educational outcomes and group differences.
The court imposed a €4,000 fine for statements he made.
Van Langenhove argued that differences between groups are not primarily the result of structural racism but rather stem from inherent group differences, a perspective that was presented as part of a broader critique of multiculturalism and progressive policies.
He made the observation that people of colour generally are worse off than white people, something his political detractors also claim, though they disagree about the root causes.
The court referred to a statement about inequality it found shocking.
“If I say it is normal that there are more Asians and whites — Asian men and white men — who become engineers than African Americans, because African Americans simply do worse at school for a number of reasons… then we are apparently not allowed to say that whites are simply better bridge builders than Africans.
“Yet go to Africa once and look at the bridges there. Most of the bridges still standing were built during the colonial period or even long before by white engineers. And when bridges need repairing nowadays, it is not the Africans repairing them — it is Asians; the Chinese have taken over everything.
“So is it really so controversial simply to observe that white Europeans and Asians are apparently better bridge builders than Africans? That is simply how it is.”
He immediately denied that this made him a white supremacist. As a counter-example he pointed out that Africans are apparently better long-distance runners and added: “But whites are simply better at some things and that is that — it is fundamental.”
He said this was what the Left got wrong. “People are not equal, animals are not equal, plants are not equal, there is nothing in nature that is equal.”
Van Langenhove also linked mass migration to declining school standards, insecurity, prison overcrowding and strain on social security.
He dismissed the prevailing explanation of structural racism, stating: “You can almost not blame them for thinking that way, because their most fundamental premises, their framework, that of egalitarianism. Once you start with that, you can’t build anything on it, because it’s already wrong from the start. These people are not equal, they are not equal and they will never be equal”.
In its verdict, the court stated that Van Langenhove’s arguments were not merely controversial but crossed into criminal territory by promoting hatred and racial superiority.
The judges wrote that “For an act to be punishable, it is not necessary for the defendant to have openly incited others to commit specific acts of hatred or violence… It is sufficient that others are incited to adopt a general attitude of intolerance or aversion towards the targeted group of persons.”
The judges acknowledged that political speech enjoys strong protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Belgian Constitution, but ruled that Van Langenhove’s remarks were criminal.
They concluded he had the specific intent to incite hatred, dismissing his disclaimers (such as welcoming everyone to his youth projects regardless of background) as attempts to shield himself from prosecution. The court held that his overall message promoted a hierarchy of groups and attributed societal problems to the presence of certain populations.
The verdict highlights the stark contrast between Belgian and American free speech protections.
In the United States, the First Amendment shields even the most offensive or unpopular speech from government interference, provided it does not incite imminent violence or constitute a true threat.
Van Langenhove’s lecture, which focused on presenting arguments and data rather than calling for action, would certainly fall under this protection.
In Belgium, though, the legal system takes a more restrictive approach.
The ruling reflects a judicial willingness to police the boundaries of acceptable discourse, particularly on issues of race and gender.
The case has emerged at a time when European limits on political speech have come under sharper transatlantic scrutiny, with United States Vice-President JD Vance using his February 2025 address to the Munich Security Conference to accuse European governments of retreating from free expression.
Left-leaning philosopher Maarten Boudry criticised the ruling on social media, arguing that the court’s decision risks turning free speech into a one-sided affair.
In a post on X, Boudry wrote: “In a liberal country, you are NOT condemned for discussing the over-representation of ‘certain population groups’ in crime statistics.”
“Not even if Van Langenhove distorts or misinterprets those figures. It is not for a judge to shut down discussions about the ethnic/cultural dimension of crime.”
He added that “It would be to the credit of Van Langenhove’s many opponents if they were to stand up for his freedom of speech. Noam Chomsky even defended the ‘free speech’ of Holocaust denier Faurisson (and, as far as I know, even Van Langenhove doesn’t go that far).”
“Just because a buffoon like JD Vance says it doesn’t make it untrue: Europe has a serious ‘free speech’ problem.”
In Europe today, speaking your mind can carry real consequences.
👉 From de-platforming to dawn raids by police, fines and prosecution, this is a story of rising censorship, shrinking tolerance, and competing visions of democracy.
Don’t miss our latest Deep-Dive: Free Speech… pic.twitter.com/pfsooyBgMy
— Brussels Signal (@brusselssignal) August 25, 2025
