The administration of Denmark has commenced an investigation into the legality of a comprehensive ban on the Islamic call to prayer within the public sphere.

丹麥政府已開始調查在公共空間全面禁止伊斯蘭宣禮的合法性。

The current initiative, spearheaded by Business Minister Morten Bodskov of the Social Democrats, represents the third attempt by the state to implement such a prohibition following unsuccessful efforts in 2020 and 2025. This policy trajectory is situated within a broader framework of stringent immigration and integration measures overseen by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. The administration's rationale is predicated on the perceived necessity of maintaining a secular public space and preserving national cultural identity against what Minister Bodskov characterized as 'Islamisation.'

本次由社會民主黨商業部長 Morten Bodskov 牽頭的行動，是政府在 2020 年與 2025 年嘗試失敗後，第三次試圖實施此類禁令。此政策軌跡位於總理 Mette Frederiksen 監督下的一套更嚴格的移民與融入措施之廣泛框架內。政府的理由是基於維持世俗公共空間的必要性，並在面對 Bodskov 部長所描述的「伊斯蘭化」時，保護國家文化認同。

Existing regulatory mechanisms already restrict the Adhan in specific jurisdictions; for instance, Copenhagen employs noise ordinances to limit loudspeaker usage, and the Grand Mosque of Copenhagen adheres to a voluntary agreement of silence. However, the proposed nationwide mandate seeks a more uniform application of these restrictions. Such a measure would occur amidst a political climate where the Social Democrats have faced electoral declines and the right-wing Danish People’s Party has seen an increase in support via platforms advocating for zero net Muslim migration.

現有的監管機制已在特定管轄區限制宣禮；例如哥本哈根利用噪音條例來限制擴音器的使用，而哥本哈根大清真寺則遵守一份自願保持安靜的協議。然而，擬議的全國性指令尋求更統一地應用這些限制。此舉發生在一個特殊的政治氣候中：社會民主黨面臨選票下滑，而右翼的丹麥人民黨則透過倡導「穆斯林淨移民零增長」的政綱獲得更多支持。

From a legal perspective, the viability of a total prohibition remains contingent upon the reconciliation of the proposed ban with constitutional protections regarding religious freedom and public worship. While the state has previously restricted anti-democratic discourse, the Adhan ban is anticipated to encounter litigation from religious organizations. This development mirrors a wider European trend toward the restriction of Islamic public visibility, as evidenced by face-covering bans in nations such as Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

從法律角度來看，全面禁止的可行性仍取決於擬議禁令能否與關於宗教自由及公共崇拜的憲法保障相兼容。雖然政府此前限制過反民主的言論，但預計宣禮禁令將面臨來自宗教組織的訴訟。這一發展反映了歐洲一個更廣泛的趨勢，即限制伊斯蘭教在公共場所的能見度，例如奧地利、比利時與荷蘭禁止遮蓋面部的禁令便是明證。

The Danish government is currently evaluating the constitutional feasibility of a nationwide ban on the call to prayer to ensure the national soundscape remains aligned with secular identity.

丹麥政府目前正評估全國禁止宣禮在憲法上的可行性，以確保國家的聲音環境與世俗認同保持一致。