However, if this is all the evidence there is, then that points out that the issue rightfully should be considered as trivial and harmful, because it has real negative consequences (elimination of a speaker) with trivial benefits (as shown by those examples in article).
I'd expect the one of the following responses:
a) Examples that Douglas Crockford did something significantly worse than the examples given in the article;
b) Acknowledgement that there were no non-trivial grounds for cancelling his speech, and that "this 'inclusivity' is not the 'inclusivity'" but an accidental overreaction;
c) Acknowledgement that yes, you consider this particular case as something that should have rightfully been done.
Do note that if you answer (c) then I will consider your [interpretation of the] movement as something harmful and something that should be fought against, because it intentionally does bad things in the name of "good intentions". I'm quite expecting to hear that (a) actually is the case, but if it's not, then the current actions were not okay.