A Belgian court has ruled that even “factually correct” statements can constitute criminal hate speech if used to “incite hatred.”
The ruling came as anti-migration activist Dries Van Langenhove was convicted for a second time over remarks linking mass migration to crime.
This is Van Langenhove’s second such conviction, following a speech he delivered at a university in Leuven in February 2024, in which he linked mass migration to crime.
The activist on Tuesday quoted the judge as writing in his ruling:
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.
Dutch commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek described the judge’s comments as proof that the establishment is “criminalising the truth.” She called on European conservatives to “come together” in Van Langenhove’s defence.
Former German MP Frauke Petry also criticised the ruling as “completely insane,” asking:
What have the politicians made of this beautiful Europe?
And Rod Dreher said the “staggering” conviction raised the question: “Why do people stand for it?”
The news has even gained the attention of U.S. under secretary of state Sarah B. Rogers, who warned: “Policymakers worried about the rise of the so-called ‘far right’ should avoid criminalising accurate, data-driven political speech about mass migration—as this ruling appears to explicitly contemplate.”
Doing so means that people willing to be convicted of ‘racism’ get a monopoly on making arguments that strike large segments of the public as important and true.
Van Langenhove said he avoided prison only because of what he described as a “technicality” in Belgian law.
