But it’s not that easy. Having a “discussion around whether abuses occur” implies allowing being apologetic towards those acts which might be abusive.

I’m sure fascists don’t think of fascism as abusive, even if it is. Would you allow discussing that?

At some point you need to set a clear dogmatic/axiomatic definition of what’s not allowed (with examples from different geopolitical positions) and don’t allow anyone to put that in doubt, abiding by that definition should be part of the rules.

Of course this makes it much harder to discuss things openly, but that’s the price to pay if you want to have a rule that claims zero tolerance.