Of course the SU/GIS are against the cancellation. It’s their event! Did I not just copy/paste the email? As for that, they put their names to it. It appears that you do wish to split hairs about who said what. Fine. AGAIN, if you read my original post I say “the ‘leaders’ of the SU RELEASED a potentially libellous statement where they suggested that students, lecturers and Peter Tatchell were going to violently disrupt proceedings without any evidence to support this.”

They released it. Potentially liable, RELEASED by them. Scroll up. The point is that it happened. You’re not listening. I was providing the full story.

As for the “dishonestly” nonsense, who is being hysterical now?

if he is going to complain about being accused – by university authorities (he in fact blames the GIS) – of being a possible threat to the peace, he should at least furnish some proof for much more serious claims about something that supposedly happened 17 years ago. Proof?

And its clear from the email that the SU and the GIS were against the cancellation.

So take up your claims with the university authorities – whom you claim are liars, and not the SU, GIS or the speaker.
[read the post above where it quotes the person against the event stating:
"It is a very cheap shot to label your intellectual opponents as a ‘violent threat’ (the words of the University [apparently Carole Mainstone],”

“according to the university” is very simple to understand – this is the uni’s claim.

I think it is disgusting that you, and others, have tried to twist this around, dishonestly in my opinion.

The original email about the cancellation (that I have a copy of) reads “Several students, a lecturer and Peter Tatchell, according to the University, who opposed the appearance of a Hizb ut Tahrir member, posed a violent threat to the event”. It may say “according to the university” but it is signed by “Gulum Alamgir, President of Global Ideas Society, Jenny Ybanez, VP Communications and Tarik Mahri, President.” It is untrue. If you wish to split hairs about who said it first, fine. I have also seen a copy of the correspondence between Mahri and one of the people trying to organise publicity about the nature of the organisation Mr Harwood represents; it was made clear there was no threat of violence. Mr Tatchell was not even aware of the event. What would you call that?

Again – you’re not reading my posts. I said “as a student at Westminster I would like to present the other side of the argument.” Mr Harwood did not give the full picture. It would be facetious of me to ask if you prefer less than the full facts so I’ll leave that there. I will say that it’s immature to purposely distort the facts – I made no claim as to the “truth” of the article itself and I am not representative of the student population of the university of Westminster. There is a plethora of differing views, many people are happy to debate him despite their loathing of fascism. I simply feel that it is a waste of time. Thank YOU for proving that point every time you invent arguments that I have not made.

he was threatened to be killed in 1994 – proof? perhaps he lodged a complaint with the police? who was it?

the man has said that he regularly protests against HT – but he can only bring up an alleged threat from 1994 which kind of highlights that he knows that the group is not violent at all.

rubbish.

and he makes the same mistake of claiming that the SU and the GIS “falsely accused” him (more amateur dramatics), – but their email states it was the university that made the claim.

it comes back to the same point – if you thought your ideas were correct and that others are wrong – you should welcome the open debate since you should be able to convince people of your straight path.

he was threatened to be killed in 1994 – proof? perhaps he lodged a complaint with the police? who was it?

the man has said that he regularly protests against HT – but he can only bring up an alleged threat from 1994 which kind of highlights that he knows that the group is not violent at all.

rubbish.

and he makes the same mistake of claiming that the SU and the GIS “falsely accused” him (more amateur dramatics), – but their email states it was the university that made the claim.

it comes back to the same point – if you thought your ideas were correct and that others are wrong – you should welcome the open debate since you should be able to convince people of your straight path.

As i already mentioned – you proved the article true by your own reaction at the end of your email.

In reply, Mr Tatchell said: “The idea that I threatened violence or posed a violent threat is absurd and defamatory.”

No mention of Jamal Harwood making an accusation there, I don’t know why you mentioned him? The information about Hizb ut-Tahrir was taken from their draft constitution. Is it somehow incorrect? I think you will find that instead of being “immature”, “hysterical” or “over the top” it is simply the facts.

I stand by my final point a la allowing fascists into universities. One cannot debate such people – be they racists, fascists, Islamaphobes, homophobes… There is no chance of Mr Harwood leaving with a fresh outlook of the murder of apostates, for instance. It’s a pointless exercise and I am happy to oppose his presence.

PS Ad hominem attacks are not the sign of a strong argument.

As far as i know – both the SU and the GIS were AGAINST the cancellation of the debate – so why blame the SU, the GIS or the scary “Islamists” who were going to debate an economical question with a professor at the uni for getting it cancelled?

Anyway – if i offended you it was unintended, but i do think both responses, particularly that of Andy who unlike you does want to shut the event down, were unwarranted and over the top here, and also misinformed.

Again – if you/ they are up for the discussion, tell the university authorities. but writing messages blaming everyone other than the university itself seems politically motivated.

I was not among the people who were planning on going to the event, however I’ve heard from people who were planning on it that they are upset it was cancelled. They wanted a debate. There’s an open platform for a reason, so that there can be debate. The risk assessment itself has no mention of real violent threat, but has mention that the debate might have gotten out of hand. I’ve been to debates at the University in the past where sides have very extremely opposing views, and those organising the event did well to make it understood that there would be no personal attacks, stay calm, etc, lest that person be removed. This worked very well. It could have worked very well in this context.

I have not seen any proof of anyone threatening violence against this debate. If you have proof, I’d gladly see it and if it’s sound I would dismiss my argument.