What date did Denmark's burqa/niqab ban take effect?
Executive summary
Denmark’s national ban on full-face veils (commonly described as a “burqa/niqab ban”) was passed by parliament on 31 May 2018 and, according to contemporary reporting, “comes into effect on August 1” of that year [1] [2]. Recent reporting through 2024–2025 discusses efforts to revive, extend, or re-open debate about the ban, but the original law’s enactment date given in 2018 reporting is August 1 [2] [3].
1. How the law was adopted and the key date
Denmark’s parliament voted to ban full-face veils on 31 May 2018; multiple contemporary outlets reported the parliamentary vote and specified that the law would take effect on August 1, 2018 [1] [2]. Politico’s coverage makes the effective date explicit: the ban “comes into effect on August 1” after a 75–30 vote with 74 abstentions [2]. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty also reported the May 31 parliamentary vote in favor of the ban [1].
2. What the 2018 law covers and how it was described
Reporting from 2018 and explanatory pieces thereafter describe the measure as prohibiting clothing that covers the face in public — a law framed to restrict the niqab and burqa though the statute’s language targets face-coverings generally [1] [2] [4]. The law was presented by Danish officials as about social norms and visibility of faces in public; critics including Amnesty warned it impinged on freedom of religion and expression [2].
3. How many people the ban affects — what reporting says
Analyses and local reporting emphasize the law affects a very small number of women in Denmark: a University of Copenhagen estimate cited in recent journalism puts niqab wearers at roughly 100–200 people — about 0.1–0.2% of Muslim women in Denmark — underscoring that the practical scope is narrow even as the political stakes are larger [4].
4. Subsequent debate, proposed expansions, and political context
Although the original ban took effect in 2018 (August 1, 2018), the topic has resurfaced in later years. By June 2025, Danish leaders and parties were again discussing extending restrictions to educational institutions and other contexts, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen publicly seeking to expand the 2018 ban’s reach [3] [5]. Coverage from The Local and Euronews frames this as a political revival of the issue rather than a new initial ban [5] [3].
5. Conflicting terminology and reporting pitfalls
Media commonly uses “burqa ban” or “niqab ban” interchangeably, which can obscure legal detail: the law is worded to prohibit face coverings in public generally but was explicitly targeted at full-face Islamic veils in public discussion [4]. Some later pieces and secondary lists (e.g., aggregated “burqa by country” pages) may repeat or update country lists without pinpointing original enactment dates; contemporary 2018 reporting is the clearest source on the August 1 effective date [2] [6].
6. What available sources do not mention
Available sources provided do not mention specific implementation mechanisms (exact fine amounts or enforcement statistics post‑August 2018), nor do they provide definitive counts of prosecutions or convictions under the law. They also do not include the text of the law itself in the cited snippets; for statutory language or enforcement data one must consult the Danish legal text or government releases, which are not in the current reporting set (not found in current reporting).
7. Takeaway and why the date matters
The accepted factual timeline in the cited reporting is: parliamentary approval on 31 May 2018 and the law’s entry into force on 1 August 2018 — a clear baseline when discussing later proposals to widen or revisit the measure [1] [2]. Knowing that the ban has been in force since August 1, 2018 helps distinguish between the original prohibition and subsequent political moves to modify or extend it in 2024–2025 [3] [5].
If you want, I can pull the exact statutory wording or look for enforcement figures, prosecutions, or the Danish government’s official announcement — but those sources are not included in the current set and would require additional reporting beyond what you provided (not found in current reporting).