And why, in this case, the point of view of one expert should prevail under the law over the point of view of another and be enshrined in international law?
Because its a matter of consensus then is it not? If it were a legal issue and a matter of subjective opinion, it obviously goes to reason that a consensus should be achieved, and at this, we see the ones who are unwilling to join the overwhelming majority. So its sophistry, and not substantive critical thinking. Just bloviate about banning Nazi.