Portugal joined a growing list of European countries that have banned or restricted burqas and other full-face veils in public spaces on Thursday. The new move slots neatly into a continent-wide pattern: states deciding what people may wear, where they may move, and how visibly they must present themselves in public. The language changes from capital to capital. The logic doesn’t.
The State Decides Who Is Visible
France became the first European country to ban full-face coverings in public spaces in 2011. Violations can result in a fine or mandatory civic education. The French government said face coverings prevent people from being clearly identified, pose potential security risks and hinder social interaction in a society where facial recognition and expression play an important role in communication. During the COVID-19 pandemic, questions were raised over whether protective face masks were compatible with the ban. Authorities later clarified that masks were permitted under existing health and safety exemptions.
Belgium followed in 2011, with offenders facing fines or up to seven days in prison. Alongside France, Belgium was one of the first European countries to introduce such restrictions, citing public security and social integration. The law aims to facilitate communication and prevent people from concealing their identities in public spaces, measures Belgian authorities have defended as essential to ensuring the full participation of all citizens in society. That’s the official script: public order, integration, participation. The state writes the script, then punishes anyone who doesn’t fit the costume.
Bulgaria banned the wearing of burqas and other full-face veils in public spaces in September 2016 and restricted them to private homes and places of worship. Muslims make up around 12% of Bulgaria's population. Austria followed in 2017 with a ban on full-face veils, including the burqa and niqab, under legislation known as the "Anti-Face-Veiling Act". The measure was introduced on security and integration grounds, with authorities arguing that face coverings hinder communication and social cohesion.
Bordering the Body, Managing the Public
Denmark enacted a full ban on face coverings in all public places in 2018. The law prohibits any clothing that conceals the face, including burqas and niqabs, and has been justified primarily on grounds of public identification and societal transparency. Luxembourg’s law restricting the wearing of full-face veils came into force in spring 2018. Face coverings are prohibited on public transport, in schools and on school grounds, in facilities for children under 16, hospitals, common areas of care homes for older people, including corridors and lifts, as well as in judicial buildings and public administration facilities open to the public.
The Netherlands took a narrower route in 2019, restricting face coverings in specific public settings such as schools, hospitals and public transport, where clear communication and identification are deemed essential. It’s not a total ban, but it still reflects a growing inclination toward regulating religious expression in state spaces. Germany has taken a fragmented approach, with some states introducing partial bans in schools and public spaces on security and communication grounds. Specific restrictions also apply to certain professions and everyday situations. Some regions say these bans are necessary to promote integration and social cohesion. Others fear they could isolate certain communities and undermine social inclusion. Either way, the state keeps the right to decide.
Portugal doesn’t explicitly ban religious symbols, but permits institutions, both public and private, to enforce neutral dress codes as long as these are applied uniformly. The aim is to protect employees from religious pressure while ensuring that workplaces remain ideologically neutral. Italy does not have a specific ban on religious dress, but a 1975 anti-terrorism law prohibits face coverings in public. Though originally unrelated to religious attire, this law has occasionally been invoked to restrict the niqab and burqa in certain public or security-sensitive environments.
Local Rules, National Power
Spain lacks national legislation on the issue, leaving decisions to the discretion of schools and institutions. In 2013, the Supreme Court backed a Madrid high school's decision to exclude a hijab-wearing student, setting a precedent but not a standard. Islamic groups have stressed that the Spanish Constitution and a 1992 cooperation agreement together protect the right to wear religious attire, while the Ministry of Education has not prioritised national guidance, arguing that such cases are rare and manageable at the local level. That’s decentralised control for you: the same hierarchy, just with more paperwork.
Sweden has no national ban on religious attire, and the veil remains permitted across public life. The national approach favours individual rights, though some municipalities have attempted to impose school-specific restrictions, citing integration and gender equality. These moves have sparked debate but have not yet reshaped national policy. Greece offers anti-discrimination protections based on religion across employment and public services, yet practice has sometimes told a more complicated story. In one 2022 case, a hospital barred a nursing student from wearing a headscarf during her internship, citing uniform regulations. The Greek Ombudsman ruled the policy did not violate anti-discrimination laws, framing it as a dress code issue, not a religious one.
The article’s final sweep widens the frame beyond Europe. Restrictions on face- or body-covering veils, varying in scope and extent, are also in place in countries across several continents, including China, Australia, Russia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Gabon, Chad, Senegal, the Republic of the Congo, Cameroon, Morocco, Algeria and others. Different flags. Same claim: institutions deciding how bodies may appear in public, and who gets to belong on what terms.
The pattern is plain. Brussels doesn’t need to issue the same law to produce the same order. National governments, courts, ministries, hospitals and schools do the work. They call it security, integration, transparency, neutrality. The people who have to live under it get fines, prison, exclusion, or the slow grind of being told their presence is acceptable only if it’s properly managed.