You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly.

Maybe keep your attempts at mindreading to yourself. I'm concerned that secure voting is being treated unfairly.

Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that [disenfranchisement] is his intention.

I couldn't find claims to that effect. All I found was that he claimed it was to secure elections, and his critics claimed it would result in disenfranchisement. Perhaps you could be kind enough to share your source?

Though regardless of what his intent is, the result will be parity with France and Iceland. I support good laws passed for bad reasons, and oppose bad laws passed for good reasons. The state of politics is not so great that I could be so picky to demand good laws also have good intentions behind them. This is the same.

a pedantic argument.

Right, the minor detail that a majority of democracies disallow vote by mail. How silly of me to get hung up on this tiny technicality.

Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery

The method and intent by which a policy is enacted, does not change the effects of that policy. But I'm sure you'll find some clever new way to avoid arguing about the policy itself. But you'll have to argue with someone else, I've humored you long enough.