Support NeoGAF

[Chairman Yang]

Oh come, curbing 'Islamism'? You mean just practicing your faith by as fasting or praying or naming your child Mohammed? Really seems like they're fighting the good fight /s

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying the policies are morally acceptable--they're obviously not. I'm saying they're effective.

It should be blatantly obvious that, at least in the medium term, the societies where Islam has been crushed are societies where Islam is less powerful.

Yes, China is eliminating the free practice of Uighur's faith. Despite that oppression, the number of attacks and casualties has dropped since 2014, not increased.

 

[cwmartin]

Religion effects pretty much every one pretty much every day. Even if you're an atheist. Society is so molded around it even non religious people have to deal with the decisions religious people make because thry make up such a large part of society, and have influence because of it.

Regarding this topic, are you honestly comfortable with people deciding for muslim women what they can and cannot wear? This decision is being made by people who are not affected by this, put still feel they should have the right to ban something that they don't decide to wear.

 

[Anion]

I never thought there were that many people who wore full on burqas to warrant a law. Since the population is very small, why not actually provide specific outreach for these people rather than taking a stand against it?

There is a very big difference between the two approaches although the reasoning can be the same for it. When the State bans the burqua, it appears as an attack and that society wants to suppress the individual. When the State provides programs for help/combatting oppression, it appears as if society truly does want the individual.

 

[fantomena]

How in the hell are there so many people defending this? GAF normally isn't so islamophobic, is it?

Are you saying there's a bunch of islamophobes sitting in the European Court if Human Rights? If so, maybe they have another view or definition on what's islamophobic?

 

[daxy]

Sometimes (actually a lot of times), the status quo is that the muslim men don't like the hijab. And they enforce that mentality into the women, while they constrict them from other things. A muslim woman that does not wear the hijab does not automatically mean she is not oppressed. Even if she wants to, she can't wear it, and now legally the family can bully her into not wearing it. Because the Human Rights™ court said it's alright.

I, as a niqabi, speak against forced marriages, dress code policing, holding back women from education. I go against the status quo.

Do you know what it means to go against the status go in muslim communities? It's to speak up and say what you believe in, and let your voice be heard as a muslim woman. It just happens that in this case, the ruling enforces the status quo, because it silences us.

I wasn't referencing the issue of the niqab or hijab, to be honest. I was purely commenting on the poster's remarks.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

That's quite the hypocritical statement, especially in this thread.

Pardon? Hypocritical how exactly?

Stop telling people what the can and cannot wear, otherwise I'll have to assume you think some pretty awful things from your actions.

Assume what you want. My reasons for opposing the niqab are not about oppressing brown people but are because they are a misogynistic garment that offend me as a feminist. I've made that clear several times and being attributed motives that I don't have is ridiculous.

Why are you surprised when the person you're reaponding to found a statement saying that there is no difference between religious people and the mentally ill funmy? They are feminist but with an asterisk clearly...

lol, are you seriously bringing up the fact that a few weeks ago I chuckled at someone's zinger in an attempt to discredit me? Not only it's a transparent ad hominem, but it's just really pathetic and shows you have nothing to say.

 

[psyfi]

As an intersectional feminist, all I can say to this without violating the forum's ToS is: don't tell me what I think or don't think.

Being an intersectional feminist doesn't mean you can tell other people what they're allowed to wear. The only people who should have any say over this are the people who wear the niqab.

 

[Muffin1611]

Pardon? Hypocritical how exactly?

See my last two posts. You're effectively advocating for the women actually being oppressed not having a chance to have a voice anymore. Since they won't go out anymore.

 

[TTOOLL]

Good good. There's no place for this absurdity in developed countries.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Absolutely not, especially with people claiming in here "they know what's best" for the Muslim women effected by this.

Religious doesn't automatically make you not able to argue your case.

The case being a part of said women having less chances to escape their oppressors and another part who can't express their religion in the way they want anymore.

First off, people expressing their religion shouldn't get to do so in any way they want.

Second, your point about women having less chances to escape is irrelevant if society isn't going to do anything about eliminating the religion entirely. Which we both know they won't do unless society forces them to evolve by doing things like this.

 

[cyberheater]

How in the hell are there so many people defending this? GAF normally isn't so islamophobic, is it?

Try reading this thread again and come back and comment when you've understood that disagreeing with an oppressive religious activity is not the same as hating on the religion.

 

[JohnDoe]

So many people in here outing themselves as (passively) islamophobic fuckwads and pea-brains.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Since it looks like everyone is riding the anecdotalism in strive, i'll add one more interestng anecdote from an ex-muslim woman:

https://www.theexmuslim.com/2013/08/03/the-hijab-suppression-and-objectification-part-one/

Engaging in the practices of hijab in order to avoid sexual objectification is, I believe, necessarily a conundrum.
...
That is the problem. In focusing on sexual objectification, the Muslimah forgets that you can be objectified in many other ways. The most radical of these is to be invisible.

Even when voluntarily done.

If you voluntarily hide yourself away and keep your literal voice from being heard so it does not arouse men, you are still closeting an essential part of your humanity. What is a human subject if not a thinker, a mover, a manipulator of space and object, a chooser of ends and achievement and knowledge and purpose? But if the goal of the hijab is to avoid objectification, doesn’t its method absolutely counter humanizing as subject? Setting aside the fact that sexual objectification is in fact not deterred by the hijab, in attempts to stave it off women end up being objectified in many other arguably more dehumanizing ways.

 

[Muffin1611]

Second, your point about women having less chances to escape is irrelevant if society isn't going to do anything about eliminating the religion entirely.

Excuse me, what?

 

[wartama]

Come on now. You've been consistently complimenting this fine poster who has reiterated the same point, no?

I am a fine poster. I was calling spades spades.

Let me iterate: do not speak for us. Keep your pity to yourselves. If you hate the sight of the niqab, so be it. If you hate or don't understand my choice, fair enough, so be it. But do not speak about how I must feel. Do not be white knight warrior. I do not need it because I am my own warrior.

The Human Rights™ court has upheld a rule that works against me. I am not happy about it and I am expressing my anger. If you are telling me that it is for my benefit, go look yourself in the mirror and contemplate why I hate your way of thinking and why I told you you're not welcomed.

Edit: sorry, I read what you said previously extra properly. The above speech isn't for you, but everyone else speaking on my behalf. I'm very cranky today.

 

[Holiday]

People are talking about what is best for Muslim women, while ignoring the opinions and experience of a Muslim woman posting in this very thread. As reprehensible as it is unsurprising.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Being an intersectional feminist doesn't mean you can tell other people what they're allowed to wear. The only people who should have any say over this are the people who wear the niqab.

Not really. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom for everything ever. Someone said they can't run around naked in the street, and that it doesn't mean they aren't living in a free society, as an example. I mean, maybe you think our freedoms are being violated for not being allowed to do that, I don't know...

See my last two posts.

...? Your posts in no way address any hypocrisy on my part, but whatever you say.

People are talking about what is best for Muslim women, while ignoring the opinions and experience of a Muslim woman posting in this very thread. As reprehensible as it is unsurprising.

Plenty of Muslim women agree with the ban.

 

[AntChum]

Good. The niqab is misogynistic as fuck.

They can be in certain contexts, yes.

lol please. Society will not collapse because a misogynistic garment is banned. On the contrary, societies do collapse when oppressive theocracies gain a foothold.

Are you saying women wearing the Niqab are the vanguard of a Muslim take over of Europe? I don't want to misrepresent you, but I don't see the mechanism in which a minority of a minority wearing a veil will lead to theocracy in Belgium.

As an intersectional feminist, all I can say to this without violating the forum's ToS is: don't tell me what I think or don't think.

As an intersectional feminist, I forgive you.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Regarding this topic, are you honestly comfortable with people deciding for muslim women what they can and cannot wear? This decision is being made by people who are not affected by this, put still feel they should have the right to ban something that they don't decide to wear.

Yes, because pretty much the only way religion ever changes is because society makes them. They almost always have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. I don't have any respect for religious freedoms if I feel like they're oppressive or negative influences on society.

And like many other people have pointed out, what other people wear can, and does, routinely effect other people in society. You're insane if you think that I wouldn't be looked at more suspiciously than the average person if I took up wearing a balaclava and trench coat every day.

 

[Kralamoonard]

lol, are you seriously bringing up the fact that a few weeks ago I chuckled at someone's zinger in an attempt to discredit me? Not only it's a transparent ad hominem, but it's just really pathetic and shows you have nothing to say.

Yes it was a sly remark, not really an argument I can admit that but I still think it speaks a lot on your outlook on religion...and that's perfectly fine, you can have whatever outlook and views on religion, and whether you just found it a funny joke or whether you are completely anti-religion isn't necessarily my point but I think what I'm really trying to say don't be surprised when you make a claim about being an 'intersectional' feminist and then have these views on religious people, many of which are affected by this law, and many of which feel they are not represented by feminist groups.

And I'm not talking about religious people holding misogynistic views. Just look at the vitriol Linda Sarsour received the other day and that's the token Muslim may seem to be "okay" with. You can only imagine when other Muslims who perhaps express their faith differently (such as by choosing to wear a niqab) are targeting by these oppressive laws.

But we clearly disagree on the above, so eh.

Plenty of Muslim women agree with the ban.

And plenty of Muslim women would disagree (mostly those affected by it). Funny how that works? We can choose the Muslim women we agree with when it suits our agenda and shove off to the side the people its actually affecting.

 

[Beer Monkey]

If there's a law against covering your face in public, either that law should be illegal, or it should apply to everyone.

No exceptions for any religion in ANY law.

Separation of Church and State.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

They can be in certain contexts, yes.

They are inherently so. Misogyny is why they were created to begin with.

Are you saying women wearing the Niqab are the vanguard of a Muslim take over of Europe? I don't want to misrepresent you, but I don't see the mechanism in which a minority of a minority wearing a veil will lead to theocracy in Belgium.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am not talking about Belgium becoming a theocracy but referring to existing theocracies or so-called secular countries becoming more and more theocratic (e.g. Turkey). I am saying that panicking over the erosion of freedom with regards to this ban is an absurd misplacement of priorities. You want to panick over erosion of freedoms, just take a look at what Turkey is turning into.

As an intersectional feminist, I forgive you.

I don't know what you're forgiving me for, but I'm pretty sure I don't want it.

 

[Audioboxer]

Well it's not really surprising considering many on the left lean towards secular views and tend to be atheist.

I mean it's one of the reasons why I don't frequent GAF because any thread relating to religion be it Islam or Christianity is made up of so called experts telling us what we should believe or what our religion actually says.

I mean just the other day someone said there's no difference between religious people and mentally ill people and got away with it...

I mean I'm not saying everyone should abeee with our views but there's clearly a large dissonance and outlook on the world; I mean many people here on GAF don't have problem defending Muslims...but rather ones they just agree with, and when it comes to Islam, you start getting the same rhetoric spouted by the right by many left leaning people here. It's get tiring but what can you do?

You do not need to be an expert in doctrine or theology to make a good argument for why a society and Government should support equal marriage laws and women being in control of their reproductive systems. Likewise, you do not need to be an expert in doctrine or theology to look at the full history of the burqa and what it does socially and physically to a women's face and at least make an argument for why it has no place in a civil society.

When people advocate for secular societies or secular ran governments it's so that NO religion gets favouritism or to unfairly reign over the others. Not necessarily to eradicate religion, as that is never going to happen and is an edgy atheist stage if anything. If it were Christianity or Catholicism that produced the influx of women all covering their faces we would be in exactly the same debate here, but as I mentioned earlier it's due to Islam growing in popularity in the EU/West, we're facing a rise of burqas. It's an issue almost unique to interpretations of Islam, whereas something like homosexuality is routinely blasted by all of the big religions. We created laws to "bring along" followers of Christianity/Catholicism though. Whenever someone feels like their chosen religion is under scrutiny/being challenged, just remember that has happened to all religions at different points and will continue to.

I understand emotions run high in a topic like this, especially if you are religious yourself and feel like people are attacking your religion. All I can really say there though, is, does anyone who is a follower of Islam in here really want full face coverings to be a part of their religion? Plenty of Muslims do not subscribe to this barbaric way of treating women, and for good reason. You WILL be asked questions in most pro-feminist societies as to why and how you could support full-face veils and that is something you should expect to be asked.

People are talking about what is best for Muslim women, while ignoring the opinions and experience of a Muslim woman posting in this very thread. As reprehensible as it is unsurprising.

If you ask some Christians in America (or anywhere in the world) if gay marriage should be legal they can probably give you pages of answers as to why the answer is no. It's not always people are ignoring opinions and experiences, simply, they may disagree.

 

[And_Gignac]

The niqab is barely used, but when it is it becomes a weapon of misogyny. I dunno if agency is a favorable factor.

 

[Osahi]

If there's a law against covering your face in public, either that law should be illegal, or it should apply to everyone.

No exceptions for any religion in ANY law.

Separation of Church and State.

It does. If you wear a ninja costume in Belgium, police can ask you to reveal your face. If you don't, you can be fined. Iirc the law against covering your face predates the niqab/hijab discussion

 

[psyfi]

Not really. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom for everything ever. Someone said they can't run around naked in the street, and that it doesn't mean they aren't living in a free society, as an example. I mean, maybe you think our freedoms are being violated for not being allowed to do that, I don't know...

I honestly have no idea what your point is.

I said being an intersectional feminist doesn't mean you can tell people what to wear. One of the main tenants of feminism is personal agency and autonomy. I'm not sure how you reconcile that.

 

[Cat Party]

I oppose the use of the niqab but it's insane to me that anyone could support a government ban on them.

 

[Playsage]

So many people in here outing themselves as (passively) islamophobic fuckwads and pea-brains.

Supporting that a law motivationally affecting non-religious people's liberties should be extended to religious people =/= islamophobe

 

[wartama]

Since it looks like everyone is riding the anecdotalism in strive, i'll add one more interestng anecdote from an ex-muslim woman:

https://www.theexmuslim.com/2013/08/03/the-hijab-suppression-and-objectification-part-one/

Actually, this is me personally talking, but I do not think of avoiding objectification when I wear the niqab. I actually do not link it modesty too. Some muslim girls do, but the last thing I think of when wearing it is hiding from men.

For me, my niqab is being visibly muslim. It is also a test that I believe (again, this is me personally talking, so do not go and generalize it to all muslims) should go through for Allah's sake. Life is a series of tests, which I don't know if I'll pass until I die (and even then, I might not). Therefore, for me, I talk in public, I speak to men freely (unless they're being creeps) and do not restrict myself to what is considered in muslim culture (not religion, the two are different) as feminine behavior.

 

[Kralamoonard]

I understand emotions run high in a topic like this, especially if you are religious yourself and feel like people are attacking your religion. All I can really say there though, is, does anyone who is a follower of Islam in here really want full face coverings to be a part of their religion? Plenty of Muslims do not subscribe to this barbaric way of treating women, and for good reason. You WILL be asked questions in most pro-feminist societies as to why and how you could support full-face veils and that is something you should expect to be asked.

I'm indifferent. If a Muslim woman wants to wear it, it's their choice. If they don't it's also their choice. It's not even obligatory but the point is, is that in both situations you have people saying they should/shouldn't and that ironically produces two extremes. We should give them the choice and education and let them make their own informed decision taking into account political/social/religious and personal spiritual factors. That's all I'm saying.

 

[BadWolf]

I oppose the use of the niqab but it's insane to me that anyone could support a government ban on them.

This law isn't banning it because it is a religious object. It is being banned because it hides a person's identity.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Yes it was a sly remark, not really an argument I can admit that but I still think it speaks a lot on your outlook on religion...and that's perfectly fine, you can have whatever outlook and views on religion, and whether you just found it a funny joke or whether you are completely anti-religion isn't necessarily my point but I think what I'm really trying to say don't be surprised when you make a claim about being an 'intersectional' feminist and then have these views on religious people, many of which are affected by this law, and many of which feel they are not represented by feminist groups.

Considering religion, particularly the Abrahamic type, has been one of the most powerful tool to oppress women across all of human history, my views shouldn't be surprising. I don't have a problem with people being religious in their private homes, but once someone's beliefs start negatively impacting the people and the world around them, then I will not hesitate in opposing them.

I honestly have no idea what your point is.

I said being an intersectional feminist doesn't mean you can tell people what to wear.

One of the main tenants of feminism is personal agency and autonomy. I'm not sure how you reconcile that.

Yeah, and I disagree with that as an absolute statement. The nakedness argument is a valid one; by making it illegal to walk around naked in the street, you are effectively telling people what to wear (in this case, clothes that cover genitals at the minimum). That isn't incompatible with a free society or intersectional feminism.

Women are 100% free to wear a niqab in their own home btw, just as they are free to be 100% naked.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

As someone who lives in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood in Glasgow (about 80/20) I think this is actually a good thing.

Personally, I don't think there is a place for it in modern society and its a heated discussion I've had with many Indian and Pakistani friends, although some do agree with my viewpoint as well.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Excuse me, what?

You're saying that it's a problem to ban this because of the effect it has on the women that wear them and their ability to get away from their oppressors. Despite the fact that any modern society has organizations in place to help people fearful of their spouses.

We have outlets in place for the exact situation you're describing, yet we shouldn't try and progress a society in another way because they might have to use them.

If any woman is fearful of their husband to the point that they won't leave the house without covering their face because of what the man might do, that is not the fault of society for making the law. If anything, it highlights why society should infringe upon the religion of people more, because it forces people who hold harmful archaic religious beliefs to act differently.

 

[Muffin1611]

...? Your posts in no way address any hypocrisy on my part, but whatever you say.

One of the two is arguing that others (the state) should decide for Muslim women how they express their religion.

That's what I meant, focus on "deciding for others" not "thinking". Sorry if that wasn't clear.

...?

You're saying that it's a problem to ban this because of the effect it has on the women that wear them and their ability to get away from their oppressors. Despite the fact that any modern society has organizations in place to help people fearful of their spouses.

We have outlets in place for the exact situation you're describing, yet we shouldn't try and progress a society in another way because they might have to use them.

If any woman is fearful of their husband to the point that they won't leave the house without covering their face because of what the man might do, that is not the fault of society for making the law. If anything, it highlights why society should infringe upon the religion of people more, because it forces people who hold harmful archaic religious beliefs to act differently.

And with this law you're limiting access to the organizations you describe, whether it's intended or not. That are the actual consequences. So of course I can fault the law too. That's not "progressing society".

 

[Kralamoonard]

Human rights > cultural relativism.

The niqab is barely used, but when it is it becomes a weapon of misogyny.

I find this statement slightly funny because countries that follow so called human rights by default are affected by cultural relativism pertaining to 'this way is the superior way' because of course, human rights isn't an objective factor you can measure and changes depending on time, place and people. If you were born in the 18th century you'd have a difference perception of human rights based on your culture and 200 years from now you'd also probably be disagreeing with your current self on what human rights are and which should be supported.

A country like France for example is one example of a secular country we can say that claims to champion human rights, and does so in many cases, but clearly only to an extent considering how oppressed ethnic minorities, (particularly from former colonial countries of France), are.

 

[Tuck]

Newdust said it best:

"People deciding what's best for people they don't know on an issue that doesn't impact them in the slightest."

This is politics in a nutshell, you do realise this, yes?

 

[psyfi]

I oppose the use of the niqab but it's insane to me that anyone could support a government ban on them.

I think this is a really crucial point. Being against something doesn't mean the government should ban it. I think energy drinks are disgusting and terrible for you, but I'm not gonna tell GAF that they're not allowed to drink them.

 

[Holiday]

You do not need to be an expert in doctrine or theology to make a good argument for why a society and Government should support equal marriage laws and women being in control of their reproductive systems. Likewise, you do not need to be an expert in doctrine or theology to look at the full history of the burqa and what it does socially and physically to a women's face and at least make an argument for why it has no place in a civil society.

When people advocate for secular societies or secular ran governments it's so that NO religion gets favouritism or to unfairly reign over the others. Not necessarily to eradicate religion, as that is never going to happen and is an edgy atheist stage if anything. If it were Christianity or Catholicism that produced the influx of women all covering their faces we would be in exactly the same debate here, but as I mentioned earlier it's due to Islam growing in popularity in the EU/West, we're facing a rise of burqas. It's an issue almost unique to interpretations of Islam, whereas something like homosexuality is routinely blasted by all of the big religions. We created laws to "bring along" followers of Christianity/Catholicism though. Whenever someone feels like their chosen religion is under scrutiny/being challenged, just remember that has happened to all religions at different points and will continue to.

I understand emotions run high in a topic like this, especially if you are religious yourself and feel like people are attacking your religion. All I can really say there though, is, does anyone who is a follower of Islam in here really want full face coverings to be a part of their religion? Plenty of Muslims do not subscribe to this barbaric way of treating women, and for good reason. You WILL be asked questions in most pro-feminist societies as to why and how you could support full-face veils and that is something you should expect to be asked.



If you ask some Christians in America (or anywhere in the world) if gay marriage should be legal they can probably give you pages of answers as to why the answer is no. It's not always people are ignoring opinions and experiences, simply, they may disagree.

Disagreeing with what Muslim women wear and legislating what Muslim women wear are not the same, and to do the latter without regard for their desires is pure, unadulterated condescension, of which you seem to have an endless supply.

 

[Osahi]

This law isn't banning it because it is a religious object. It is being banned because it hides a person's identity.

This. This post should be at the top of every page.

Religion is not a 'above the law'-card, and just as it a law mustn't have the intend of opressing a religion, a law mustn't be abolished because of one. This law is not intended to opress Islam or limit the freedoms of muslim women, but sets a rule for the way we intract with each other. Which is what laws in a society need to do.

 

[psyfi]

This is politics in a nutshell, you do realise this, yes?

not anarchist politics

 

[NewDust]

I think this is a really crucial point. Being against something doesn't mean the government should ban it. I think energy drinks are disgusting and terrible for you, but I'm not gonna tell GAF that they're not allowed to drink them.

I think society itself can be a very powerful tool, and not everything needs to be governed. (as opposed to some 'individualists' in this topic)

Society already punishes people for wearing face hiding attire.

 

[Muffin1611]

This. This post should be at the top of every page.

Religion is not a 'above the law'-card, and just as it a law mustn't have the intend of opressing a religion, a law mustn't be abolished because of one. This law is not intended to opress Islam or limit the freedoms of muslim women, but sets a rule for the way we intract with each other. Which is what laws in a society need to do.

It doesn't actually matter what the law intends or not when it actually makes life worse for a group of people.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

not anarchist politics

There is no such thing as anarchist politics

 

[wartama]

Not really. Freedom of religion* doesn't mean freedom for everything ever. Someone said they can't run around naked in the street, and that it doesn't mean they aren't living in a free society, as an example. I mean, maybe you think our freedoms are being violated for not being allowed to do that, I don't know...


...? Your posts in no way address any hypocrisy on my part, but whatever you say.


Plenty of Muslim women agree with the ban.

You forgot the asterisk. I added it for you this time, but don't forget next time.

Also, I don't agree with the ban. Is there a poll of muslim women who support/ not support the ban anywhere? I'd like to participate.

 

[warthog]

Good riddance.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

If any woman is fearful of their husband to the point that they won't leave the house without covering their face because of what the man might do, that is not the fault of society for making the law. If anything, it highlights why society should infringe upon the religion of people more, because it forces people who hold harmful archaic religious beliefs to act differently.

True. But religion often gets a pass.

...?

Really, that's your comparison? You'd have a point if I said something like, "women who wear the niqab do so because they love how it pisses off Westerners, it has nothing to do with their freedom, they're just pretending", but I never did anything like that.

You forgot the asterisk. I added it for you this time, but don't forget next time.

I don't know what you're talking about, but no, I'm not going to do that, thank you very much.

 

[psyfi]

There is no such thing as anarchist politics

When I say anarchist politics I'm referring to the core beliefs, values, and world view of anarchists, which is such a thing, and has a few hard points and some more loose general understandings.

 

[Liha]

It doesn't actually matter what the law intends or not when it actually makes life worse for a group of people.

You won't find a single law which doesn't make life worse for a group of people.

 

[boiled goose]

As someone who lives in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood in Glasgow (about 80/20) I think this is actually a good thing.

Personally, I don't think there is a place for it in modern society and its a heated discussion I've had with many Indian and Pakistani friends, although some do agree with my viewpoint as well.

I agree that it has not place in modern society and yet I don't support a government ban.

The means matter. You can't achieve real freedom with more oppression.