I conclude he's a vandal for what I consider very sound reasons leading to inevitable deductions....but let's not talk about him, and stick to the specifics of the issue at hand:
1. It is "backwards" to approach any controversal subject by first listing the defense of the perpetrators  can you imagine how jarring it would be for you to read an account of, say, the Antebellum South, which began by listing "choice" quotes regarding lenient recommendations plantation owners gave to their overseers concerning the treatment of their subjects? It's utterly bizarre.
2. It is grossly POV as well as inaccurate to portrary the perpetrators as "giving rights" and "protection" when they are doing precisely the contrary. The whole turgid mess is an appalling whitewash, despite a few throw-a-bone references in the links, and everyone involved in whatever horrific "consensus" (if any) Hell-spawned it ought to be very ashamed of themselves.