Mr. Walsh, in terms of your expertise as an officer of Parliament and also as a lawyer who's trying to be objective, please correct me if I cross a line. This is done in the interests of trying to help everybody understand what the terminology associated with “accurate” means.
I think you have this front of you, or you've seen it. When one uses the word “willingly”, we have crossed the line from fact to intent, so one has to establish that there has been intent in order for somebody else to suggest that “willingly” is an accurate term to use.
Second, when one makes it an established fact that a conference is an “overtly anti-Semitic” conference, then surely it must have been advertised as that prior to participation in order for this to be accurate. When one reflects back on a conference and judges it to be anti-Semitic because of what developed once the conference began, that would be a different accuracy, would it not?