Absurdity of European Hate Speech Laws: Paedophilia Allegations Won’t Trigger Investigations, Commenting On Them Will

Ideological and political impartiality is a necessary precondition for the independence of law enforcement bodies but it is not the case with European hate speech regulation.

At the beginning of 2023, two incidents occurred within a short period of time in the Netherlands where dark-skinned youth gangs attacked and beat up a white youth, in the first case, and a white older gentleman walking his dog in the other. The brutal videos of those attacks sparked public outrage on social media, and the incident was also discussed in the Dutch parliament, where Gideon van Meijeren (FvD) called the youths negroids (negroïde) and was then banned by the speaker for using the term.

TV personality Raisa Blommestijn reacted to the incident in turn in a post on X: “Another white man beaten up in the street by a group of negroid primates. How many more defenceless whites have to be victimised? Probably countless: the open border elite is importing these people in droves, with all the consequences that this entails.”

A criminal investigation followed this online post. Photo: screenshot.

Leaving aside the question of whether Blommestijn’s post was in good taste or whether it could have been worded more politely (by the way, the word ‘primate’ has 16 different meanings in Dutch, including ‘human’ as well as ‘the Pope’), the issue of open borders and migration policy raised by Blommestijn was and is a topical one in today’s society, as there has been a noted increase in the offences committed by asylum seekers. And the statistics show that in general people of migrant origin commit more offences percentage-wise than the native population.

On 05.12.2024, the court convicted Blommestijn of insulting a group of the public, sentencing her to 80 hours of community service, 40 of which were decreed as suspended.

The court found that by ‘negroid primates’, Blommestijn meant ‘violent apes’, by which she had insulted the immigrants, and that her post added nothing to the public debate. It is not clear from the verdict how the court had arrived at this interpretation.

Is referring to paedophilia defamation?

Blommestijn was also found guilty of defamation for calling a former left-wing MP, Sidney Smeets (D66), a ‘kleuterneuker’, which could be translated as ‘a child molester’.

Sidney Smeets is a lawyer and former politician who, among other things, as a lawyer, has represented the association called Martijn, which was banned in the Netherlands at one point for having called for the legalisation of sexual relations between adults and children, which meant their views were legally considered paedophilia. Smeets defended the association's chairman, Ad van den Berg, in court as well, while the latter was nonetheless convicted of possessing child pornography. Van den Berg owned around 150,000 child pornography photos and 7,500 videos. He also appeared personally in about 12,000 of those photos.

Leaving aside Smeets’s moral values in the choice of his clients, it is noteworthy that Smeets himself became embroiled in a scandal shortly after becoming an MP in 2021 when the party leadership received a report of his sexually inappropriate behaviour. Notably, various young men, including minors, shared their experiences of interacting with Smeets on Twitter.

On 17.04.2021, the newspaper Trouw published an article entitled What exactly is the grooming of which D66 MEP Sidney Smeets was guilty? In the article, Simone Belt, a representative of Helpwanted, a platform against online sexual abuse, described how Smeets’s behaviour was typical of grooming. The newspapers Algemeen Dagblad and Het Parool also reported how a number of young men, including those under 16 years old, had disclosed Smeets’s interactions of a sexual nature with them via Twitter, Facebook and a gay dating site. Het Parool also described how, in addition to communicating via social media, Smeets had had actual sexual relations with underage adolescents.

Referencing paedophilia is prosecuted, but not paedophilia itself

The young men’s allegations were corroborated by screenshots of their conversations. The internal investigation was abandoned though as soon as Smeets resigned from the party. For reasons unknown to the public, law enforcement authorities did not initiate proceedings either. However, Smeets has never sought to refute the allegations made against him in the press, nor has he taken the newspapers or the young men who made the allegations to court. Several newspapers describing what could be considered grooming and paedophilia had thus publicly discredited Smeets’s good name.

As a lawyer, Sidney Smeets defended paedophiles. As a politician, his own sexual interest in minors also came to light. However, public comment on this led to the prosecution of the commentator. Photo: D66/Wikimedia Commons.

Despite that, even others besides Blommestijn were later convicted of defaming Smeets. Jan Bonte, for one, a neurologist and a critic of coronary intervention and the coronary vaccine, has also been convicted of libel for calling Smeets ‘a paedophile’ on X. The same goes for the right-wing critic Sander van Dam, who posted on X: “Toddlers need to have Smeets. He is mad about them.” In September 2024, a woman from Groningen was penalised for a post made on Twitter in 2022 – when D66 happened to be the only political party to vote against a bill on child pornography, the woman reacted to it with a post saying, “Why doesn't D66 want to identify child porn producers? Apart from Sidney Smeets, aren’t there any others in your party involved in child porn?” Both Blommestijn and Bonte are now appealing their verdicts.

Smeets, on the other hand, has repeatedly posted tweets of insulting and defamatory nature towards others, including a case of calling journalist Wierd Duk ‘a Nazi’. In response to a petition submitted by Duk to the law enforcement authorities, it was stated that though the act was punishable as such, no charges were brought ‘due to lack of capacity’. At the same time, the appeals submitted by Smeets have all been processed.

After the appointment of Dick Schoof to the government, and prior to the release of the official government photo, Smeets had posted a photo of Hitler’s former government with the caption “Government photo leaked”. In spite of the fact that the posted photo showed Nazis wearing swastikas and therefore clearly associated the new Dutch government with the Nazis, no official reaction followed, contrary to the case of a right-wing FvD MP Pepijn Van Houweling, who had also made a Nazi reference towards the members of the government on social media (this was discussed in Part One of this story which you can read here).

Double standards: a right-wing politician was criminally investigated for posting a Nazi photo, while Sidney Smeets, a left-wing politician who developed unacceptable relationships with minors, was not investigated. Photo: screenshot.

On 19.12.2024, however, social conservative Gary Bouwer was acquitted of defaming Smeets, when Bouwer had called him ‘a groomer’. The Court opined that“according to settled case law, a statement which is in itself offensive may lose its offensive character if the statement is made in a context in which it is likely to contribute to the public debate and the statement is not unnecessarily offensive in that context.” In particular, Bouwer had reacted to a post by Smeets in which the latter had expressed his opinion on the protests against the planned Asylum Seekers Centre (AZC) in Albergen. The Court found that Bouwer, as an active politician, and Smeets, as a former politician, had only taken part in the public debate about the construction of AZC in Albergen and the protests against it. The verdict has not yet entered into force.

Severe penalties for memes posted in a closed group

The most shocking case comes from Belgium, where on 12.03.2024 Dries van Langenhove, the leader of the association Schild & Vrienden, was convicted of racism and negativism, i.e. Holocaust denial, and sentenced to the maximum penalty of one year of actual imprisonment, as well as a fine of €16,000 and the maximum penalty of a 10-year abolishment of his civil rights. Van Langenhove was further sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment and a fine of €8,000 for selling pepper spray.

In 2018, it was reported in the press that the ‘radical right’ group Schild & Vrienden was sharing racist, sexist and Holocaust-denying memes in a closed (!) social group. Van Langenhove himself did not post or share the memes, but the court found that, as the leader of the group, he should have been proactive and prevented the sharing of those memes.

In addition to Mr van Langenhove, six other people were convicted, two of them members of the right-wing political party Vlaamse Belang which won the last elections. One of those people was a member of the European Parliament. They were given a suspended sentence of 6 months of imprisonment and fined €8,000. The sentences have not yet entered into force.

Leaving aside the question of whether the sharing of memes in a closed group is even legally punishable, more so, as was the case with van Langenhove, for passive ‘participation’, it is noteworthy to view it in comparison with the verdict of one year of suspended imprisonment handed at the same time to the actor and influencer Nicolas Caeyers on the charge of raping two minors, aged 13 and 15.

Another interesting comparison is the sentence handed to Conner Rousseau, the leader of the Vooruit (Social Democrats) political party, for inciting others to club down gypsies, while he was drunk at a bar at night – as a result of a mediation process, he was ordered to attend therapy sessions and visit the Dossin Kazern, the Belgian Holocaust museum.

Dangerous right-wing satire versus left-wing activism

On 01.06.2020, at a Black Lives Matter demonstration, the black rapper Akwasi exclaimed, “Should I see a Zwarte Piet in November, I will personally punch him in the face.” Zwarte Piet is part of a children’s party in November, where Sinterklaas, arriving in the Netherlands on a ship from Spain, has jet-black helpers in traditional robes producing and handing out the gifts. Since 2009, Akwasi has repeatedly posted tweets calling for direct violence. In 2009, for example, he tweeted, “Could someone shoot Sinterklaas off the ship this year, I’ll offer 500 for his head.” Or in 2011, “Will someone ever shoot some Zwarte Piet or do I have to do it?” Akwas could not be prosecuted, for he then publicly distanced himself from his statements, and the prosecutor’s office found that it was not in public interest to prosecute him.

On 12.03.2024, the comedian Hans Teeuwen posted a satirical film in which he was of ironical of Amsterdam’s left-wing mayor Femke Halsema’s (GroenLinks, 2006 ‘Liberal of the Year’) handling of the Holocaust Memorial Day, where Halsema lost all control over demonstrators and later justified it on social media. Teeuwen’s video showed a fake pistol lying on a table, an ironic reference to Halsema’s son and the incident where he was found in possession of an illegal firearm. Experts say it was obvious that the pistol on the table was not a real gun, but nevertheless, less than two hours later, six police officers arrived at Teeuwen’s door to confiscate the weapon. The weapon was later returned to him and Teeuwen donated it to Halsema.

On 24.10.2024, columnist and left-wing activist Asha Ten Broeke “philosophised” in a column at the Volkskrant newspaper, under the headline Where does the moral obligation to stop a man or a movement begin – and how to decide, whether Donald Trump, at the time a US presidential candidate, was like Hitler, and how anybody would want to prevent Hitler from having power, thus clearly playing with the idea that any means would be permissible in preventing Trump from coming into office. After the first assassination attempt on Trump, he further stated that it must not be forgotten that Trump is a fascist.

On 27.11.2024, journalist and satirist Jan Roos, in his programme RoddelPraat (Rumours), called on the people of Ameland to prevent journalists arriving at the Sunneklaas party from ever stepping on the island. Sunneklaas is a traditional party taking place on that island, with the rule of no uninvited guests or journalists. A year ago, a conflict occurred at the event between journalists and local residents, for journalists had tried to cover the party in negative light. RoddelPraat is a satirical programme, and Roos is known for his exaggerated presentations. His statement was clearly provocative, checking the boundaries of legality, to which Roos’s co-presenter could not hold back a laugh and named eight offences to his name on the spot. On Friday evening two days later, Roos was arrested and released only after midnight. According to Roos, he was sitting in a detention cell without knowing what he was being held in custom for. Leaving aside the question of culpability, it feels questionable whether the law enforcement reaction was proportionate. The investigation continues.

Violence against politicians

In addition to the fact that law enforcement authorities have taken a pro-active stance to curb freedom of expression, it is to be considered that the exercise of freedom of expression can at times be outright life-threatening.

2002 saw the murder of the right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn, and 2004 the same happened to Theo van Gogh, a journalist and film director, who had been critical of Islam. Both individuals had been the subject of repeated threats, but no security was enforced to protect them. As already mentioned in Part One of this article, Geert Wilders, a politician critical of immigration, has been under constant safeguard since 2004 for his criticism of Islam. In 2021, the crime journalist Peter de Vries was also murdered, allegedly at the behest of an imprisoned Moroccan gang leader Ridouan Taghi, whom De Vries had implicated earlier. De Vries had repeatedly been threatened, but law enforcement authorities claimed that De Vries did not want to be protected. De Vries’s life partner denied the allegation and accused the system of bribing De Vries.

Death threats against politicians or critics must therefore be taken seriously and although bullets have historically come from the left, there is a noted difference in how the incidents against politicians on the left or those on the right are treated now.

On 05.01.2022, a man with a burning torch stood outside the house of the left-wing D66 minister Sigrid Kaag and shouted slogans, but there was nothing directly threatening in his actions or words. It also came to light that the man was mentally ill. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to five months of actual imprisonment.

On 22.04.2022, a man invaded the house of the right-wing BVNL MP Wybren van Haga. The MP was in the parliament debating, but his wife and child and three alarm system installers were present in the house and detained the man. The man who had forced his way into the house had shouted something about a machine gun and demanded to know where van Haga was. The prosecutor’s office decided that the incident was not a threat but merely a breach of domestic peace.

On 26.10.2023, near Ghent University, Belgium, Thierry Baudet, a leader of the right-wing FvD, was hit on the head with an umbrella that had a wooden stick attached to it. The assailant shouted in Ukrainian, “No to fascism, no to Putinism.” The man was only given a warning.

On 20.11.2023, a 15-year-old boy hit the same Thierry Baudet twice on the head with a beer bottle, for which the young man was sentenced to 80 hours of community service and 109 days in a juvenile detention centre, out of which 90 days were suspended.

Right-wing politician Thierry Baudet has been physically assaulted repeatedly because of his views. Punishments for attackers are lenient. Photo: Sleutelstad/Wikimedia Commons.

Similar decisions based on ideology are also passed in climate-related cases. At the last climate conference in Baku, there was even a special panel concerning ‘judicial side events’, i.e. explaining to the judges how to implement ‘climate justice’.

Law enforcement agencies have now started to apply gender ideology as well. Notably, people who consider themselves gender neutral can use X instead of ‘male’ or ‘female’ to indicate their gender. The use of ‘X’ on persons’ identity cards is not formally regulated in Dutch law, but by obtaining an accordant document from a psychologist, gender-neutral people can go to the court, and on a few occasions the court has actually allowed X to be used on their identity cards instead of their gender. However, in the spring of 2024, the TV programme Ongehoord Nederland (or ‘The Unheard Netherlands’) was looking for a new editor-in-chief, stating in the advertisement that he or she would need to be male or female, ‘not X’. On 03.02.2025, the chief of the programme, Peter Vlemmix, was interrogated on suspicion of discrimination. The proceedings are ongoing and it will be interesting to see who the law enforcement authorities believe were discriminated against: the persons who identify themselves as genderless or Generation X as a whole.

Ideological, moral and political impartiality is a necessary precondition for the independence of law enforcement bodies, especially the judiciary. One cannot help but ask, has the goddess of justice lost her blindfold and instead of administering justice, has now taken it upon herself to reform the world?