Case Summary and Outcome

A Belgian Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of several members of a far-right youth movement, for promoting racial discrimination, Holocaust denial, and incitement to hatred and violence. The case arose after a documentary revealed the movement’s closed social media groups where members shared racist, antisemitic, and violent content under the guise of humor. The Court found that these groups functioned as a structured association that intentionally disseminated hateful messages to incite discrimination and prepare for violence against racial minorities and Jewish communities. It rejected the defense that the content was merely jokes, emphasizing that the use of memes was a deliberate strategy to normalize racism. The Court also held the group’s leader responsible as a co-perpetrator for allowing Holocaust denial content to circulate in the virtual spaces he controlled. By recognizing delays in the trial, the Court confirmed the convictions but reduced some of the penalties.

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression notes that some of the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources.

---

Facts

On September 5, 2018, the Flemish Radio and Television Broadcasting Organization (VRT) in Belgium aired a documentary on Schild & Vrienden (S&V), a far-right youth movement that had been gaining popularity. The documentary covered S&V’s public activities but also revealed its secret “inner workings” through an undercover journalist and discussed how S&V maintained private chat groups on the social media platforms Facebook and Discord where they shared racist material and Holocaust denial memes. 

The documentary prompted the Public Prosecutor to launch a criminal investigation, and search warrants led to the confiscation of the VRT’s raw documentary footage and some suspects’ computers. Although Facebook refused to cooperate, NOBOT, an “ethical hacker”, was employed to verify the authenticity of (formerly deleted) racist and denialist posts in the Discord groups. [para. 7 of First Instance Decision] Another expert used was “Textgain”, a company which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to track and analyze online hate speech and this expert report concluded that “large quantities of [racist and negationist] material were indeed present.” [para. 7] During interrogations, several of the suspects also admitted to the existence of the private Discord and Facebook groups.

Eleven members of S&V were charged with inciting racial discrimination, segregation, hatred, or violence against a group, a community, or its members (under Article 20, 3º and 4º Anti-Racism Law junto art. 444 Belgian Penal Code); denying, minimizing, justifying, or approving of the Holocaust (under Article 1 Holocaust Denialism Law); spreading ideas based on racial hatred and racial superiority (under Article 21 Anti-Racism Law); belonging to an association that promotes discrimination and segregation (under Article 22 Anti-Racism Law); and selling or offering for sale prohibited weapons (under Article 19 Weapons Law).

Dries Van Langenhove, the leader of S&V, was charged with all counts, while the other members faced at least two charges. [para. 7 of First Instance Decision]

Although the documentary sparked significant public criticism, it also bolstered Van Langenhove’s political career: he ran as an independent front-runner for the far-right Vlaams Belang party [“Flemish Interest”] during the 2019 elections and won a seat in the federal parliament with over 39,000 preferential votes, making him the fourth most popular politician in the electoral province. However, in March 2021, a near-unanimous vote lifted Van Langenhove’s parliamentary immunity, allowing him to be sent to trial for his actions as the leader of S&V and in 2023, he voluntarily resigned his seat in the federal parliament to focus on his career as an “activist rather than a politician” and his upcoming S&V trial. 

On March 12, 2024 the First Instance Court of Ghent held that the S&V Facebook and Discord groups “were directed towards like-minded individuals and those susceptible to a racist discourse” and that racial minorities and Jews were “repeatedly and systematically mocked on those forums.” [para 13.2. of First Instance Decision]

Van Langenhove did not appear in Court. He claimed his right to an independent trial had been violated since the presiding judge was a “leftist swindler”. His lawyer refused to present a substantive plea and called the court “illegally constituted.”

The crime of inciting racial discrimination, segregation, hatred or violence against a group, a community or its members can only be committed if it takes place in a public space or a private space accessible for gatherings upon invitation. The S&V Facebook group had at least 750 members and the Discord group had 164 users and the Court found that both constituted “private spaces, accessible upon invitation” and therefore met the publicity requirement under Article 444 of the Belgian Penal Code [BPC]. In establishing the context to assess the posting of memes and messages, the Court examined whether the S&V members intended to incite racial discrimination or segregation and noted that the S&V Facebook and Discord groups “were directed towards like-minded individuals and those susceptible to a racist discourse”, that racial minorities were “repeatedly and systematically mocked on those forums” and that the “expression of racism was also encouraged on these forums”. [para. 13.2 of First Instance Decision] The Court added that the S&V members’ defense that “sharing some jokes should be allowed”, was not applicable and that the “humor” used within S&V was “deliberately and systematically employed to make racism accessible and light-hearted.” [para. 13.2 of First Instance Decision] The Court found that by “encouraging the frequent posting of racist and negationist ‘humor,’ the members were deliberately and gradually convinced of their own superiority and the necessity to achieve S&V’s objectives through discrimination and violence.” [para. 13.1 of First Instance Decision]

The Court examined the role of Van Langenhove, particularly as he was the only “group admin” of the social media pages and so was considered “the person ultimately in charge, the so-called ‘final boss’,” and was personally responsible for 5 021 posts. [para. 13.3 of First Instance Decision] The Court gave examples of what it considered to be Van Langenhove’s “highly toxic content”, and found that he repeatedly instructed the creation of memes to normalize racial inferiority, thereby “creating an atmosphere of collective fanaticism that incited the posting of racist messages” and that “[a]t no point did he make an attempt to block the messages and images” and instead encouraged them. [para. 13.3 of First Instance Decision]

The Court cited Textgain’s report which had found that the “most extreme insults seem to be directed against immigrants …. [who] are, for example, compared to primitive tribes, excrement, or target practice, described as scum, inbred, backward, aggressive, lazy, and their culture as inferior.” [para. 13.3 of First Instance Decision]

Accordingly, the Court held that Van Langenhove and three other suspects who also posted memes about “Congo, interracial relations, and drowned immigrants washed up on the beach” on S&V’s social media were found guilty of inciting racism. [para. 13.5 of First Instance Decision]

Examining the charges of denying, minimizing, justifying or approving of the Holocaust, the Court gave examples of various images, photos, and memes that were posted by the S&V members. It found that these images – at a minimum – “grossly minimized and endorsed the genocide during World War II.” [para. 14.1 of First Instance Decision] The Court held that “given the objectives of S&V, the repetitive nature of these messages, images, and memes, the closed forums, the inciting language, and the proposed violence, [the images] can in no way be classified as humor or innocent jokes.” [para. 14.1 of First Instance Decision] It found that “the spread of both denialist and racist messages or content was the ‘core business’ of S&V, whose goal is to make Flemish youth aware of their allegedly ‘pure’ Flemish identity.” [para. 14.2 of First Instance Decision]

Although Van Langenhove did not post any Holocaust denial memes himself, the Court held him criminally responsible for them as he was the “leader of that organization [S&V] and the administrator and ultimately responsible person for those [Facebook and Discord] groups.” [para. 14.2 of First Instance Decision] It found that he had “stimulated, facilitated, and tolerated” the sharing of Holocaust denial posts, thereby creating “an atmosphere of collective fanaticism.” [para. 14.2 of First Instance Decision]

The Court also convicted five other members of S&V who created or posted memes for Holocaust denial.

In examining the charges of spreading ideas based on racial hatred and racial superiority, the Court provided examples of racist posts on the Facebook and Discord groups. In relation to some memes which suggested that black people were less attractive and poorer than white people, the Court stated that ‘[t]hese messages spread ideas based on alleged racial superiority and racial hatred, specifically the notion that Black people cannot support a family and that Black people are less attractive than white people, with the aim of inciting racial hatred and justifying a policy based on discrimination.’ [para. 15.6 of First Instance Decision]

Van Langenhove was found guilty as the leader and administrator of the group, as well as for fanning the flames with his racist posts. Five other members were also convicted for violating Article 21 of the Anti-Racism Law. One of them created a meme of Leopold II (the late King of Belgium responsible for the colonization of Congo) greeting President Barack Obama, whose hands have been cut off. The Court noted that “[i]t can no longer be considered mere crude humor. The image of the severed hands—in the context of Congo—refers to the severed hands of Black slaves in Belgian Congo, evoking and spreading the notion that Black people are inferior.” [para. 15.5 of First Instance Decision]

On the charges of belonging to an association that promotes discrimination and segregation, the Court stressed that it is not necessary for the association to be held personally responsible for a violation of the Anti-Racism Law but that, for this crime to be committed, the group must “apparently and repeatedly advocate discrimination or segregation,” and the suspect must “knowingly and willingly belong to this group or association or provide assistance to it”. [para. 16.1 of First Instance Decision] The Court found that, although S&V does not have legal personality, it was an informal association with sustainability and structure: the S&V website described itself as a “Flemish nationalist youth movement,” and the group members had their own uniform, website, Facebook page, Twitter and Instagram accounts, and business cards and its website sold  branded merchandise to help finance their activities. Accordingly, the Court held that “it was an organization with a hierarchy, specific objectives, and its own policies.” [para. 16.1 of First Instance Decision]

The Court found that the three other charges demonstrated that the association was used to promote discrimination and segregation. Van Langenhove was again found guilty of this offence as the “founder and de facto leader … [and] the mastermind behind everything.” [para. 16.2 of First Instance Decision] Six other members were also found guilty of belonging to a racist association, for smaller roles or for being moderators in the chat group and as some of them had actively cooperated in the removal of incriminating evidence after the documentary was broadcast. [para. 16.3 of First Instance Decision]

The Court sentenced Van Langenhove to one-year prison sentence, a criminal fine of 16,000 euros, and a 10-year ban from political life on these charges, in terms of Article 31, para. 1 of the Belgian Penal Code. Van Landenhove was also found guilty of selling or offering for sale of prohibited weapons for offering pepper spray for sale on the internet to his fellow members, for which he was given a suspended prison sentence of 10 months and a criminal fine of 8,000 euros. The Court found that Van Langenhove’s hate speech “crosses the line of what is acceptable:” and stated that he had “demonstrated an extreme lack of morals and contempt for fundamental values and rights [and] abused fundamental rights and freedoms to infringe upon and deny those of others.” [para. 21 of First Instance Decision] It added that he had “sought to undermine democratic society and replace it with his model of white supremacy.” [para. 21 of First Instance Decision]

Five other accused were given lower sentences since they were merely “followers” or “sympathizers” [para. 22 of First Instance Decision] and were given suspended prison sentences of 6 months and (partially) suspended fines of 8,000 euros. [para. 39 of First Instance Decision]

The Court found that one suspect showed genuine remorse and distanced himself from his past actions by apologizing to the civil parties and so granted him the favor of probation which stipulates that as long as he committed no further crimes he would not receive a punishment.

Van Langenhove and the five other convicted members lodged an appeal with the Ghent Court of Appeal, seeking to have the First Instance decision overturned.

NOTE: A crowdfunding campaign titled “Free Dries” has already raised over 100,000 euros to help cover Van Langenhove’s criminal fines and legal expenses.

---

Decision Overview

The central issue for the Court’s determination was whether the First Instance Court had rightfully held that the sharing and creation of thousands of memes and messages in S&V’s private Facebook and Discord groups constituted violations of Anti-Racism and Holocaust Denial laws.

The Court analyzed the charges individually.

In respect of the charge of belonging to an association that knowingly and repeatedly promotes discrimination under Article 22 Anti-Racism Law, the Court rejected the S&V members’ arguments that S&V cannot be considered an association in the legal sense, but was merely a “movement.” The Court held that S&V met the legal definition of a structured association, because it operated with organized activities and internal hierarchies (normie, recruit, warrior, veteran, and final boss), had its own uniform (a blue t-shirt with their logo), a website describing their common goal, and a webshop on which they sold stickers, flags, and other promotional material to help financially support their activities. It found that internal communication showed that the Facebook group was created with the goal to “become the mouthpiece for ‘white’ boys and girls who feel discriminated against by the elite” and noted that the police had discovered S&V’s mission statement that reads: “After originating as an internet forum for Flemish-minded youth, Schild & Vrienden wants to turn its words into action. Consistent internet activity remains a crucial tool for marketing and promotion. However, S&V does not limit itself to mere ‘keyboard warriorism’.” [para. 5.2.3.]

The Court found that S&V, through its closed Facebook and Discord groups, openly and repeatedly disseminated content that was racist, antisemitic, and glorified Nazi ideology. It noted numerous examples of dehumanizing “jokes,” memes, and visual content aimed at racial minorities (mostly non-white non-Europeans) and Jews which the S&V members had maintained “were merely intended to be humorous, ‘just for laughs.’” [para. 5.2.4.] The Court stated that “One cannot hide behind humor when the true intention is to incite hatred.” [para. 5.2.4.] The Court found intention proven by different posts made by its most prominent members: Van Langenhove posted that “Memes are a means, not an end in themselves. Don’t lose sight of that” and “It starts with memes, it ends with a Flemish Empire from the North Sea to Katanga;” and another user posted that “We (right-wing youth) use memes to funnel our politically incorrect ideas to the general public (read: normies). The red pill is sweet and must be administered in small doses.” [para. 5.2.4] The Court also found a logo of the “Bureau of Memetic Warfare” on Van Langenhove’s computer.

The Court emphasized that the closed Facebook and Discord groups were employed not just to share jokes, but also “other, ordinary messages” aimed at inciting hatred and discrimination. [para. 5.2.4] The Court found that the hateful messages were mostly aimed at people with non-European origins, purely based on their different physical aspects, who were referred to as “others” and blamed for all the ills of modern-day society, such as robberies, rape, and violence. It held that the content, language, volume, variety of senders, duration, and frequent posting in private groups clearly show that S&V aimed to incite hatred and discrimination against any other ethnicity besides white Europeans, especially Muslims and Maghreb people. [para. 5.2.4.]

The Court also found that S&V incited violence as it discussed the “prepping-phenomena,” where Van Langenhove advised joining a shooting club to learn how to handle firearms and to develop good physical fitness and conditioning. The Court noted that these conversations about “the day of violence” are not criminal on their own but that they indicate that Van Langenhove did not “shy away from violence” and urged his followers to prepare for when violence would become necessary. [para. 5.2.12.] Accordingly, the Court found these messages to be incitement to violence against people of non-European origin and found Van Langenhove, along with five other S&V members, guilty of knowingly belonging to an association that promotes discrimination.

In respect of the charge of inciting racial discrimination, segregation, hatred of violence in terms of Article 20, 3º and 4º Anti-Racism Law, the Court found all six S&V members guilty. It supported this finding with examples of S&V’s discourse as discovered on the closed Facebook and Discord groups and rejected the S&V members’ argument that they had shared these memes and jokes with “a genuine intent to be humorous” and they “were meant to be funny and not serious”. [para. 6.6] The Court referring to its earlier finding on how humor was “nothing more than a means to get away with the message”. [para. 6.6 junto 5.2.4]

In respect of the charge of Holocaust denialism, under Article 1 Holocaust Denialism Law, the Court provided examples of memes that minimized or denied the existence of the Holocaust, written by the five other members on trial and found them guilty. Again the Court rejected the S&V member’s argument that the jokes were just “tasteless humor” and a way to “ventilate frustrations in a closed group” and stressed that it was not “punishing an opinion, which would violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. […] However, the right to free expression is not absolute. According to Article 19 of the Constitution, Article 10.2 of the ECHR, and Article 19.3 of the ICCPR, freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions or sanctions established by law.” [para 7.5]

Regarding Van Langenhove’s charge of Holocaust Denialism, the Court recognized that he did not share any posts or memes regarding the Holocaust himself but it still considered him a co-perpetrator of the crime since he had created and controlled the virtual space in which others were expressing themselves this way. In one post Van Langenhove had called upon the S&V members to share their “most dark humor,” which led to a flood of Holocaust-related memes and he, as moderator, could have deleted these messages but refrained from doing so [para. 7.3.]. Accordingly, the Court found him guilty of this charge as co-perpetrator. [para. 7.7]

In respect of the charge of spreading ideas based on racial hatred and racial superiority under Article 21 Anti-Racism Law, the Court, again, gave some examples of posts and memes that could be considered to spread racist ideas. A guilty verdict requires intention and that Court identified evidence on the S&V members’ personal computers that showed this intent, such as listening to radio monologues and reading papers where Black people were compared to animals and blamed for crime (“Send them all back,” “A white world,” and “Racial fitness and survival”). [para. 8.3] The Court stressed that listening to racist lectures or saving racist pictures is not criminal behaviour, but that it can demonstrate a defendants’ vision that “the white race is superior, and Black people and foreigners are inferior.” [para. 8.3] Under Article 444(6) Belgian Penal Code, to be charged with this crime it is necessary that the racist ideas are shared in public and as the Facebook and Discord groups had 750 and 163 members respectively, despite them being closed groups, the Court found that the posts had reached a wide range of receivers and so met the publicity requirement [para. 8.4 junto para. 5.2.5.] and found all six S&V members guilty of this charge.

In respect of the charge of selling or offering for sale prohibited weapons (under Article 19 Weapons Law, the Court found that Van Langenhove also used the Facebook and Discord channels to sell pepper spray, which is a prohibited weapon in Belgium and so found him guilty.

In respect of the sentence, all S&V members had committed their crimes with the same criminal intent, and so, in accordance with Article 65(1) Belgian Penal Code, the Court needed to apply one penalty per person, choosing the heaviest.

The Court considered the crimes very severe and they had drawn each of the S&V members on trial, and many others, into a racist and hateful discourse. The content and language they used were “deeply shocking,” and the Court commented on their “cunning and calculated approach.” [para. 10.2] The Court noted that, outwardly, the S&V members had presented S&V as a movement aimed at strengthening Flemish youth identity and promoting physical and mental resilience but that, in reality, their goal was to pit this youth against other groups, whom they deemed inferior. The Court stated that the S&V members had believed they could do this unnoticed and without punishment, hiding behind humor and using two social media platforms that, while somewhat restricted, were still accessible to a wide audience and found that all S&V members on trial “contributed to intolerance and hostility in our society, showing utter contempt for the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” [para. 10,2]

However, the Court did take into account that more than six years had passed between the events and the appellate ruling which meant that the S&V members’ right to a trial within a reasonable time had been exceeded. It found this delay not serious enough to dismiss the charges entirely but considered that the sentences should be mitigated.

Accordingly, the Court  found all six S&V members guilty as charged but lowered their original sentences substantially.

Van Langenhove, as founder and leader of S&V, played the largest role in these offenses. Originally facing 18 months in prison and a €4,000 fine, his sentence was reduced to 12 months suspended and a €200 fine. Because the Weapons Law, which is the law providing the heaviest penalty and must thus be applied according to Article 65(1) Belgian Penal Code, does not allow disqualification of political rights, this additional sanction could not be applied to him. [para. 10.3]

The other five members were given a €1,600 fine, combined with community service or suspended prison sentences. [para. 10.4 – 10.8]

Van Langenhove reacted to the appellate decision calling it “a dark day for free speech” and plans to appeal the ruling at the Court of Cassation.

---