violence is the supreme law of man. People get confused with violence monopoly. Violence monopoly is good, otherwise it’s the law of the jungle.

I have ports forwarded locally to deal with my router, that doesn’t apply to my ISP down the line.

So you are under CGNAT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

From the wikipedia link:

Carrier-grade NAT usually prevents the ISP customers from using port forwarding, because the network address translation (NAT) is usually implemented by mapping ports of the NAT devices in the network to other ports in the external interface. This is done so the router will be able to map the responses to the correct device; in carrier-grade NAT networks, even though the router at the consumer end might be configured for port forwarding, the “master router” of the ISP, which runs the CGN, will block this port forwarding because the actual port would not be the port configured by the consumer.[7] In order to overcome the former disadvantage, the Port Control Protocol (PCP) has been standardized in the RFC 6887.

You will only be able to upload to someone with a public ip address or with UDP hole punch (but there are some technicalities - and doesn’t work in all the cases). The same will happen if you use torrents. Maybe you don’t notice difference because of the sheer amount of people using seedboxes and vpn.

Typical reply from an islamist that never left the muslim country where he lives. Where were you crying when Turkey had the same law?

Abayas and qamis are religious garments. However only women were the abayas. Why don’t the men wear the qamis? What a strange thing: In a mysogynist religion the woman are so religious that wear religious garments! Lol.

it is one with far greater complexity than can be solved with sledgehammer legislation

Yes it’s better to not do anything. Because it might hurt the feelings of muslims…

even if some people do benefit, because many do not.

Even if 1 person benefits with the law then the law is worth it. Or do you think that the law needs to benefit everybody? The law needs to protect the most vunerable. In this case the muslim women.

Oh, we are doing quotes now? I prefer this one from an ex-muslim:

My school and my family became increasingly radicalised in the 2000s - 2010s and while I used to wear the headscarf, I never used to wear the abaya. At home, I was being reprimanded for wearing non-loose fitting clothes. At school, I was told by a Muslim girl to start wearing more modest clothes and think about the Hereafter. Everywhere in the Muslim community at my college, there was ´Islam’. There was this pressure to act like a pious Muslim. The Islamic society segregated girls and boys. One Friday sermon included the reminder for « sisters to stop distracting the brothers »! I saw a Muslim girl put on the headscarf. She came to the prayer room and eventually she started wearing the scarf. I think there was another girl I knew too who did the same.

Eventually, I started wearing the abaya alongside my headscarf. This lasted a week because I could not handle it anymore.

It is therefore not true to say that a Muslim woman wearing an abaya is cultural and about her freedom. What France is seeing is a radicalisation of Muslim youth. Girls coming to school in ´modest’ Islamic clothing will actively encourage other more moderate Muslim girls to do the same. Just like it happened to me.

Good! The rules are for everybody. Freedom from religion!