Should the Niqab Be Banned?

This debate has resurfaced in the UK, as some voices are calling for a nationwide ban on the niqab, citing security concerns and pointing to precedents in countries like France, Denmark, and Belgium.

The irony is clear: these calls often come from societies that claim to champion personal freedom, religious autonomy, and resistance to government intrusion into private life.

The security argument is flawed because procedural exceptions exist, and women wearing the niqáb have already removed it in private for security checks at airports, banks, and police stations when necessary. Moreover, there is no credible data linking niqáb-wearing women to a disproportionate share of criminal or terrorist activities in the UK. Likewise, this is clearly a case of selective enforcement; if facial concealment truly compromises safety, why aren’t motorcycle helmets, ski masks, or medical face coverings similarly banned?

The “the public has a right to feel safe” argument is desperate since public policy should be based on objective threats, not subjective fears. Feelings of discomfort, often shaped by media bias or xenophobia, do not warrant the restriction of civil liberties, even according to supposed Western standards.

For instance, large dogs (especially certain breeds like Rottweilers or pit bulls) make many members of the public feel afraid, particularly in parks or on the street. There are frequent cases of attacks, injuries, and even fatalities, yet owning and walking a large dog in public remains legal as long as leash laws are followed. Public fear is not, by itself, considered enough reason to ban large dog ownership altogether. Society accepts that discomfort or anxiety can be managed through reasonable regulation (e.g., leashing, muzzling in some areas) without prohibiting ownership. Yet when it comes to the niqáb, subjective fear, with far less statistical danger, is used to justify a total ban on someone’s religious practice.

Take goth or punk fashion, for example. Outfits involving full black clothing, spiked accessories, or dramatic face makeup can intimidate or disturb people in conservative areas. Yet, it is still legal. So, while alternative Western fashion is seen as quirky or expressive, religious dress from a minority group is seen as threatening or suspect. It’s truly a double standard.

How about far-right political rallies? Marches by extremist or nationalist groups often provoke fear, especially among minorities. Yet, it is protected under free speech and assembly rights. So provocative displays of xenophobia are tolerated to preserve democratic freedoms, while peaceful religious attire is policed. The “right to feel safe” is selectively invoked only when it aligns with the majority’s discomfort, not when minorities express fear. This turns public safety into a one-way privilege: the feelings of discomfort of non-Muslims are treated as actionable, while the lived experiences and anxieties of visibly Muslim women are treated as irrelevant or exaggerated.

Likewise, the “niqab causes social alienation” argument fares no better since any social alienation among Western Muslim communities stems more from economic exclusion, media stereotyping, and structural discrimination than from face coverings. Bans on the niqab would only foster resentment and radicalization, thereby weakening social trust. We always hear from Western secularists that social cohesion in a diverse society is achieved not through forced assimilation but through mutual respect. So why the double standard here?

Also, the “some women are forced to wear niqab” argument is probably the worst. It’s not a neutral argument; rather, it’s a selective excuse. We don’t ban practices in other areas of life just because coercion exists. We tackle the coercion, not the choice. To do otherwise is to weaponize the experiences of a few to punish the freedoms of many.

A ban on the niqáb in the UK, or anywhere else, under the guise of security is an ineffective, unjust, and discriminatory policy. It violates religious freedoms supposedly cherished, applies inconsistent standards, and lacks credible empirical justification.