It is absolutely a strawman. You're asserting your opinion (that the only justification for a restriction is if it is 100% effective) as a fact, treating it as a universal law, and then concluding that since the restriction does not meet this standard, it is evidently not justified and not legal. You have never once even attempted to justify this, you merely continue to assert it as a fact and build the entirety of your argument upon that unjustified assertion. There is neither legal nor practical justification for your assertion, and without it you have no argument. Your argument can thus be wholly rejected and we can move on from it.