Should Banning Be Banned?

Should Banning Be Banned?

 

Before putting anything in the list of to-be-banned items, the first thing which, ethically, should be done is the analysis of pros and cons of the thing under consideration. Since, here, we are talking about putting a forbiddance to “Banning” itself, we have to evaluate the intensity of positivity and negativity that is generated by banning things. Before actually labelling Banning as something that deserves an absolute end, let us consider what banning actually is and what its characteristics are.

There is a long list of things, from movies and books to edibles and clothes, which have been banned due to different reasons in different parts of the world. 

Like every performable action, the idea of banning things has been misused over and over in many parts of the world. The ban put on frowning of one’s face in the Italian metropolis of Milan is one instance to prove how dictatorial in nature bans can be at times. However, the provision of banning things that an authority possesses can be used for maintaining peace and harmony or for other well-beings of the citizens. Ban on sales and consumption of liquor in the rural areas, for instance, can be considered to be a step which will definitely improve the Indian rural life, where alcohol has been reasons for poverty, domestic violence and whatnot. But on the other hand, there are many examples of absurd bans like; in Denmark people can only name their babies from a list of government-approved names. Or, the rule in North Korea that prohibits its citizens from wearing blue jeans. These type of bans are what make the idea of banning things look awkward to the common people.

At times, we see films being banned by governments. Recently, Udta Punjab was banned in Punjab and there was a lot of controversy revolving around it. The film was later released with some editings. This one has been concluded to be political in nature.

Though bans generally give a negative impression on the common people about the motives of the authority, yet sometimes bans are necessary to impose. Ban on drinking while driving is absolutely fine, as a matter of fact.

So, basically, bans are of various kinds. Some bans, like bans on films based on social issues, which are politically motivated, has to be made to come to a halt. Whereas, the bans which are not politically motivated but are actually necessary for maintaining peace and harmony in the country should not be considered as something which has to be stopped. There are two sides of every coin. Electricity, which is a necessity of modern life, also becomes the cause of death to so many people. The accidents caused by unprofessional usage of electricity, or by deliberate misuse, cannot make us consider electricity as something which should be banned. In similar fashion, since the power of banning has been misused time and again, it doesn’t mean there is something wrong with the idea of banning things. The fringe elements of the society must be stopped from spreading materials in the forms of books and movies which can lead to conflicts and clashes. The ban put on consumption of drugs can be regarded as positive aspect of the idea of banning.

So, basically we can say that banning should not be banned; rather there should be yet another ban on the misuse of ban by authorities. Banning of things must be used as a last resort, as an exception to the norms of liberal society. It should not be treated as a tool for gaining political benefits or for suppressing voices. Also, it should be taken care that a ban is imposed through consensus of the common people or at least with that of their representatives.

- Asif Uzzaman