08/06/2026
Behind the Veil: Britain Would Not Be the First
As debate intensifies in Britain over proposals to ban the burqa and niqab in public spaces, strengthen border controls, and deport those who have entered the country illegally, opponents often portray such measures as unprecedented or uniquely extreme.
The reality is rather different.
Whether one supports or opposes these policies, Britain would not be breaking new ground. Across Europe, Asia, Africa and even parts of the Muslim world, governments have already adopted similar measures in the name of security, secularism, social cohesion, animal welfare, or national identity.
Face Covering Restrictions Are Already Widespread
Contrary to popular belief, restrictions on full-face veils are not limited to a handful of Western countries. At least two dozen nations have enacted laws restricting the wearing of the burqa, niqab, or other face-covering garments in public spaces or government buildings.
European countries that have introduced restrictions include France, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Latvia, Portugal and parts of Italy.
France became the first European nation to implement a nationwide ban on face coverings in public places in 2011. The legislation imposed fines on those who wear face-covering garments in public and also penalized individuals who coerce women into wearing them.
Outside Europe, restrictions exist in countries including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka, China, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, Senegal, Tunisia and Zambia.
Significantly, several of these countries have Muslim-majority populations, demonstrating that concerns surrounding face coverings are not exclusively a Western phenomenon.
Secularism and National Identity
Many countries justify such restrictions on the grounds of secularism rather than religion.
Turkey, under the reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in the 1920s, abolished sharia-based legal systems and adopted European-style civil and criminal codes. Today, many Central Asian republics, including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, maintain strictly secular constitutions that separate religion from state governance.
Across Europe, secular constitutional principles often prevent any religious legal system from operating as a parallel judiciary.
Immigration Controls Are the International Norm
Critics frequently describe deportations of illegal migrants as harsh or controversial. Yet virtually every sovereign state retains the power to remove individuals who enter or remain in a country unlawfully.
The United States, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Italy and numerous other democracies routinely deport foreign nationals who have no legal right to remain.
Likewise, almost every country requires some degree of language proficiency, civic knowledge, or cultural integration as part of permanent residency or citizenship applications.
Far from being unusual, these requirements are considered standard tools of national immigration policy.
Animal Welfare and Religious Slaughter
Another area where Britain finds itself debating questions already addressed elsewhere concerns religious slaughter practices.
Several European countries require animals to be stunned before slaughter, effectively preventing traditional forms of non-stunned halal and kosher slaughter from taking place domestically.
Countries that have adopted such requirements include Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Slovenia, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Finland. In Belgium, regional governments in Flanders and Wallonia have implemented similar restrictions.
Supporters argue these laws improve animal welfare, while critics contend they limit religious freedom. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that European governments have often been willing to place secular or welfare considerations above certain religious practices.
A Wider International Trend
The central question facing Britain is not whether these policies are unique. They are not.
The real debate is whether such measures are appropriate for Britain, and whether they would strengthen social cohesion, national security and public confidence in the country's institutions.
Supporters believe they would. Opponents argue they would undermine civil liberties and social harmony.
But whatever conclusion Britain ultimately reaches, it would be joining a conversation that dozens of nations around the world have already had.
The evidence shows that restrictions on face coverings, robust immigration enforcement, integration requirements, secular legal systems and limits on certain religious practices are not rare exceptions. They are policies that have been adopted, in varying forms, by countries across multiple continents, cultures and political traditions.
Britain would not be the first. It would simply be deciding whether to follow a path that others have already taken.
