Why burqa ban is back after six years

From the return of the burqa ban to the political agenda after six years, to information sharing with the US and revocable citizenships. Our weekly column Inside Denmark looks at some of the stories we’ve been talking about this week.

Denmark’s ‘burqa ban’ could be set for expansion

One of the most divisive policies of the Danish government back in 2018 was its decision to introduce a ban on the use of full-face covering veils in public places. It imposed a fine of 1,000 kroner for first offences on individuals wearing garments which cover the face.

The ban could, in theory, apply to wearing balaclavas or motorcycle helmets, but was primarily targeted at the Islamic veil and became referred to as the ‘burqa ban’.

This term was both accurate, because it refers to religious Islamic veils as being banned, while also being a slight misnomer because the niqab, a black veil with a small slit for the wearer’s eyes, is the name of the full-face veil worn by a tiny minority of Muslims in Denmark.

The burqa, the full-length veil through which the wearer looks through a mesh, meaning their eyes are covered, is thought to be extremely rare in the Nordic country.

The introduction of the law on August 1st 2018 saw public protests against it, while statistics released in subsequent years showed it had been enforced rarely. It has been largely out of the public spotlight for some time, until this week.

It is now set for a new round of public debate after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said this week that it should be extended to schools and universities.

The PM also said she wanted to see an end to prayer rooms at universities but stopped short of calling for an outright ban.

“God has to step aside. You have the right to your faith and to practice your religion but democracy takes precedence,” Frederiksen, who was in opposition when the original law was passed, told news agency Ritzau.

Human rights campaigners and religious groups have criticised the existing ban as discriminatory and as a violation of both freedom of religion and women’s freedom of choice.

Supporters argue it enables Muslims of immigrant backgrounds to better integrate into Danish society, and prevents “social control” forcing women to adhere to practices they might otherwise choose not to.

Frederiksen said her government would start talks with universities to have them removed.

“It’s not a discussion about whether we want them or not,” she said.

Frederiksen said she did not know how widespread the phenomenon of social control is.

“For me, it’s not just the scale that matters. I’m the prime minister of Denmark. I’m also a woman. And I can’t tolerate the oppression of women,” she said.

Left wing party wants end to information sharing deal with US

Denmark’s controversial arrangement with the US by which it shares information from its own communications cables must be brought to an end sooner rather than later, the far-left party Red Green Alliance said this week.

“We believe the cable cooperation should be terminated immediately. It has always been problematic, but with [US President Donald] Trump in the White House, we believe it has gone from being problematic to outright dangerous,” the party’s senior political spokesperson Pelle Dragsted said to Ritzau.

Denmark and the US have, since the 1990s, had an agreement allowing the US security agency NSA to tap information from Danish cables.

The agreement between the NSA and the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (FE) was not officially confirmed for many years.

Former defence minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen confirmed its existence in 2020 before reports the following year revealed the NSA had used it to spy on top politicians in France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.

Dragsted’s comments might also be viewed in the context of more recent reports the current US administration wants to spy on Denmark and Greenland as part of its ambition to take control of the latter territory.

Convicted ex-minister’s calls for conditional citizenship lack self-awareness

Danish citizenship should be subject to a ten-year probationary period after it is granted via naturalisation, ex-immigration minister Inger Støjberg, now leader of the national conservative Denmark Democrats, said this week.

The proposal would allow authorities to revoke someone’s citizenship if the new citizen commits a serious crime during the probationary period.

In a video published on the Denmark Democrats Facebook page, Støjberg said that citizenship should be revoked in the first ten years for crimes which “would otherwise have meant that citizenship would not have been granted”.

The proposal is likely to have some sympathy from other parties on the right wing as well as from the governing Social Democrats.

While it would not be possible to implement the proposal without violating international rights conventions, there is plenty of political support for giving authorities greater power to revoke citizenships from convicted criminals.

The concept of stripping someone of citizenship for wrongdoings is not unheard of elsewhere in Europe – in France, for instance – and even Denmark itself has already revoked citizenships in a few rare cases.

But the ex-minister seemed to gloss over her own past indiscretions as she railed against naturalised Danes.

“Far too many new Danish citizens commit crimes and thereby celebrate their new Danish citizenship by going out and doing something criminal,” Støjberg claimed in the video.

The former minister received a 60-day prison sentence and was expelled from parliament in 2021 for issuing an illegal directive while immigration minister. She served the sentence with an electronic ankle tag before later founding the Denmark Democrats and being re-elected to parliament.

Under Danish citizenship rules, anyone who has received a criminal sentence, either conditional or unconditional, cannot become a Danish citizen. Milder punishments such as fines can result in a suspension from applying for a period of at least four and a half years.

The ex-minister’s past conviction therefore means she would not pass Danish citizenship criteria if applying, and would lose it under her proposed rules if she was a naturalised citizen.

Why burqa ban is back after six years

Tags: