Van Langenhove Convicted Again for Hate Speech in Belgium

Dries Van Langenhove, the controversial far-right activist and former Belgian federal parliament member, has been convicted for a second time on charges of incitement to hatred and racism. On 26 May 2026, the Correctional Court of Leuven ordered him to pay a fine of €4,000 for a lecture he delivered at KU Leuven in February 2024, which prosecutors say was a racist tirade disguised as an academic talk on regenerative agriculture.

The Conviction

The court found Van Langenhove guilty of incitement to hatred based on nationality or ethnic origin, and of disseminating ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred, according to VRT NWS. He was acquitted on charges related to incitement based on sex or gender. The sentence amounts to a €4,000 fine—a notably lighter penalty than his previous convictions.

The prosecution argued that the lecture, organized by the far-right Flemish nationalist student organization NSV (Nationalistische Studentenvereniging), was never genuinely about agriculture. “After about 45 minutes, the topic of regenerative agriculture finally came up, and only for a few minutes, after which Van Langenhove continued his political discourse,” the prosecutor stated, as reported by De Morgen.

The Lecture and Its Aftermath

The event took place on 28 February 2024 at the Pedagogisch Instituut of KU Leuven. What was advertised as a talk on regenerative agriculture became a one-hour monologue in which Van Langenhove expounded his far-right worldview. According to the student newspaper Veto, he made statements such as “Multiculturalism means dictatorship” and claimed that “without the white, racist man, the blacks would still be sitting in Africa.”

KU Leuven responded swiftly. The university filed a criminal complaint against Van Langenhove and banned NSV from using its facilities until the end of 2025, stating in a press release that the statements “go directly against the core values of the university.” Around 100 activists protested the lecture on the Ladeuzeplein in Leuven that evening, and an open letter signed by approximately 1,000 people, including KU Leuven professors, criticized the university’s decision to allow the event.

Van Langenhove’s Defense

Van Langenhove has maintained that he did nothing wrong. “I have done nothing wrong or illegal,” he said, according to De Morgen. “If I am convicted, it is for expressing verifiable facts.” He described the prosecution as a “witch hunt” and called for an apology from the Public Prosecution Service.

A Pattern of Legal Troubles

This conviction adds to Van Langenhove’s growing legal record. In the separate “Schild & Vrienden” case—named after the far-right group he founded—he was initially sentenced to one year effective prison and a €16,000 fine in March 2024. On appeal in June 2025, the Court of Appeal in Ghent reduced the sentence to one year suspended prison and a €1,600 fine, citing the “reasonable time” for prosecution having been exceeded. Van Langenhove has appealed that ruling to the Court of Cassation.

Debate Over Hate Speech Laws

The case has reignited a fierce debate in Belgium about the scope of the country’s hate speech legislation. In a controversial opinion piece published by De Morgen on 27 May, chief commentator Bart Eeckhout argued that the conviction was an “injustice.” While describing Van Langenhove’s views as “reprehensible, shocking, hurtful, and sometimes patently false,” Eeckhout warned that the 14-page ruling was “remarkably thin” on evidence connecting the speech to actual incitement.

“The free expression of opinion is a fundamental right that protects not only well-meaning opinions, but also shocking, offensive, or reprehensible ones,” Eeckhout wrote. He called on progressive politicians to reform Belgium’s hate speech laws, arguing that overly broad interpretations create a “slippery slope toward unfreedom and repression of ideas.”

What’s Next

Van Langenhove has not yet indicated whether he will appeal this latest conviction. His appeal in the Schild & Vrienden case remains pending before the Court of Cassation, which reviews the legality of judicial decisions rather than the facts themselves. Should he avoid disenfranchisement, a return to active politics remains a possibility, though Vlaams Belang chairman Tom Van Grieken has suggested that Van Langenhove’s future lies in activism rather than party politics.

The broader question—where to draw the line between protected speech and illegal incitement—remains unresolved in Belgium and across Europe. As this case demonstrates, the answer carries profound implications for both the fight against extremism and the preservation of free expression.