The Queen is a figurehead. An ambassador to the world, in fact. How can you say she is not part of foreign policy? She may not set foreign policy, but she certainly represents Great Britain in such a way that she can affect it! If she went on TV and said "Screw you, Muslim community" it would certainly affect the relations between Iraq and Great Britain. Basically, knighting this guy is the same thing, except less overt. It doesn't really matter what she says or does - it won't affect the tariffs or anything. But what matters is that people like to pretend words matter, especially when there aren't enough actions to speak louder than them.

What did he say, TA? Have you read the book? Could you give me a few specifics, please?

I thought we agreed that i dont have the intellect to do that? besides, i dont want to turn this discussion into a contest between your knoweldge and mine. This is not the issue here.

The Queen is not the PM, and therefore has no say in the foreign policy of that country

She may not set foreign policy, but she certainly represents Great Britain in such a way that she can affect it!

enough said. Good response Jythier

Actually, if you could give a few specifics, that would be great. I don't care who has more knowledge about it, I just want to have some knowledge about it so I know who I'm posting about.

if you could give a few specifics, that would be great

I really dont want to repeat or discuss what Rushdi said in his novel about Islam and Its Prophet. In short he named several characters in his novel with names very close to those of the Prophet, his wives and companions. He used the name Mahound, for the main character. This name is an insulting European name for the prophet. He presented the prophet as a man possessed by the devil and made him recite verses praising the pagan Idols, Ellat, Manat and Uzza. He also presented him as a womanizer and his wives as .... well .... you can read a good deal about that in this link

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/.

here is the link again

Link

Thanks. I would've let you get away with just the link.   

So what you are saying is the average Muslim is stupid? That they do not have the capacity to ignore other peoples opinions? In other words, you believe the average Muslim is a savage animal that attacks when offended because they are incapable of reasoning, right?

This is interesting reasoning, considering that many of South American Latinos are not so educated, are not so free, are not so powerful, etc. yet I don't see them calling for the death of people, doing terrorist attacks or even killing themselves for that matter. If I was to go by your analogy, we would probably have 12 million plus terrorist in our country and more crossing the border daily, except we are currently calling them illegal immigrants.

I mean think about it. You wanna talk about insulting spiritual figures? What do you think about the teen who had the "bong hits for Jesus" sign? You don't think that kind of mentality offended those who believe in Jesus? Connecting Jesus to using drugs? I did not see a world wide outcry over this, I did not see Catholics protesting down the strets of the world calling for the kids head, I did not see death and destruction due to the words of this ignorant teen. This is what I mean when I say you excuse the actions of these Muslims who get mad over stupid little things.

How can you say she is not part of foreign policy?

The same way that TA can say that we are not a part of foreign policy when we go to a foreign country and act like idiots.  OUr actions can have an impact on the perception others have of our country, but that will not set one trade agreement, or military alliance.  The Queen is the same in that respect, although more famous (think of a Paris Hilton for the US).

Now, if you believe that anything that anyone does is a part of the foreign policy and reflects on the nation of citizenship (a valid idea), then that means that anything any of us do that might piss off some loonatic in another country should be banned or restricted to avoid said affront.  And the more famous the person, the greater the impact on perception, and thus the more restrictions that must be placed on them in order to avoid offending the easily offended.

It does not and will not stop until we are praying 5 times a day to mecca and women are wearing burkas.  So I for one dont want to even start allowing a foreign power - or a subset of loonatics - to start dictating what I can or cannot say or do in my country.

I definitely agree with you Dr. Guy, about no foreign power dictating what you can or cannot say or do in your country. Great point. But, you do not represent your country in the same way as the Queen of England does. As a figurehead, those restrictions are there, just as they are for any ambassador. But, as an ordinary citizen, I do not have those restrictions.

I third that Jythier.

The same way that TA can say that we are not a part of foreign policy when we go to a foreign country and act like idiots. Doc

what "WE" say does not have the same impact as when it is said by the Queen of UK or the President of the USA. Does it?... TA

Does that mean "We" are not part of foreign policy? why you keep spinning my words .... i will never know. !!!!!!!!!!

There is such a thing called Diplomacy, if you dont believe in that then there is no way to convince you that in certain cases you refrain from doing something, not because others dictate that to you but because it is to you own advantage.

You really ought to learn to think for yourself before you 'think aloud', TA.

It seems to me (see ... i did that on my own) that you cant handle a civil discussion and are trying to turn it into a personal one. What exactly is your point in doing that? i am not interested in personal arguements with you LW. We are not reviewing Rushdie's novel here, why are you trying to steer the discussion that way and to my way of thinking? discuss the point of the article if you like but trying to drag the discussion into a shouting match is not my cup of tea. Nice try, but no ... thanks.

You're a funny person TA. While you claim to want to stick to the point of the article, you have spent "most" of your replying time replying to LW and not really countering the replies of the rest of us. What's the point of having a "civil discussion" when you don't address the comments of those who are sticking to the point of the article?