It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

heckling the queen at un

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
I can't see the point in heckling the Queen at all..... What has she done to deserve it?

I don't care much for the royal family personally but I still treat all people with the same respect that i would wish to be treated with.

Now if it was the pope and people heckled him.... then fair enough.... he covered up and defended paedophile priests and probably deserves a good heckling.... But the Queen?

I dunno man.... Haven't people got more important things to worry about right now? Is hurling abuse at an 84 year old woman really all the OP can think of??

What a stupid thread....




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Would you really classify heckling as covered under freedom of speech.

Maybe it is, but for those incapable of constructing a valid counter argument, speech, statement etc.

To be honest I do not know if I agree that the act of heckling can actually be called freedom of speech. if anything it's harassment.

but I also know that trying to confront figureheads in one on one debate is near impossible. so what do you do.

if anything I think this would have to come under right of protest. But as for hurling insults as a figure head, under the guise of F.O.S. hmmmmm for me it doesn't hold true.

I agree maybe writing a letter, is the best way forward,.



You make a valid arguement. What is the difference between showing unhappiness with a politician and harrassment?

A person should be able to show their displeasure. ANd as you pointed out, you rarely get opportunities to do so. It is actually kind of a complicated issue.

But in the instance where a leader is just showing up for a gathering, not campaigning or grandstanding, it is unwarranted. So in this instance, where she is on a totally unrelated visit, I would say it is bad form.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Silk
 


It is just knee jerk patriotism. I don't care for it myself. People get blinded quickly and have an emotional reaction. No one wants to have their own country insulted. Or we wouldn't have this thread. No one is immune. But some people don't take it a step further and see it is just one person making a statement, and take it personally.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I can believe the attitude of some people here, American's in particular. Liz doesn't affect your life at all. By pushing this attitude forward you are not only dissing people in the UK but countries all over the world that still believe the Commonwealth means something.

Secondly, Liz is the head of the Church of England. Lots of CoE people in this part of the world that may not care for it either. Would you heckle the Pope? The Dali Lama?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Would you heckle the Pope?



Yes.... as I said above.




Originally posted by blupblup

Now if it was the pope and people heckled him.... then fair enough.... he covered up and defended paedophile priests and probably deserves a good heckling.... But the Queen?



ETA: Not sure I would personally do it... as I said, I try and treat everyone with respect, and I wouldn't even go and see the pope as I have no interest at all.... but there is good reason to heckle the pope, that was my point.

[edit on 20/6/10 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Then my friend you would be no better than those that would debase themselves by heckling the Queen. These are representatives of billions of people.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



Edited my above post before I saw this... Dunno man.
I think It's about respect but It's also about Justification.... As I said, I don't think I would heckle the pope, I have no interest in doing it.... but there is a reason to do it.

If the queen tried to cover up a paedophile scandal and was complicit in the cover up, then I guess people would have reason.

I dunno.... Different strokes for different folks man...



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Well pedophilia is not only an RCC problem. Just better documented I think. And NO I'm not Catholic. I actually don't believe their tenets at all.

You are right about the "respect" thing. But couldn't it be said that one would have to respect THEMSELVES first and not get involved in this type of action?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



For sure mate... The RCC just seem to be the main targets for some reason?

And yes, I totally agree... respect starts with yourself.
And as I said, I don't think I would personally take the time and effort to go and heckle the Queen, the Pope... or any head of state or religion.... I have no desire whatsoever.

But I do think people have a right to protest and a right to air their views...
I don't believe that heckling a member of royalty or head of state is the best way to go about it though.

It's a tough one, I can see both sides.

I personally would not go and heckle them... But I guess I wouldn't deny someone else the right to do it.



[edit on 20/6/10 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I still nhave not got a clear answer on this.

Why the hell would anyone want to go heckle the Queen at the UN????

Can ANYONE give just one simple freaking reason!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
I still nhave not got a clear answer on this.

Why the hell would anyone want to go heckle the Queen at the UN????

Can ANYONE give just one simple freaking reason!


This is just an observation but I think that those that say they would is because they CAN. 1st Amendment and all. They don't think that because they HAVE the right that it is indeed "right".

Secondly, some Americans have long memories. Those 2 skirmishes(the big ones) were over 200 years ago. Not that one might notice. That's why Americans have to fly to Canada first if they want to go to Cuba.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 




I would imagine most the nuts on here would say because she's a reptilian shapeshifting overlord who feeds on the souls of peasants.

But realistically.... there aren't many reasons why anyone would want to I wouldn't have thought?
As I mentioned... maybe the pope, or some filthy rich CEO of a bank, who lost all our money.... or the pope.... but the Queen? It's an odd one indeed.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


I imagine it has something to do with some Americans equating the BP oil spill to Britain. I dont agree with the sentiment, but have stated in other threads I can understand the misguided resentment of Britain at this time.

If a pissed off American were to heckle the Queen, it would n't bother me and as a British citizen I wouldn't take offence.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JakiusFogg
 


Maybe its that romantic/deluded notion of giving the ''MAN''.. Or in this case, the ''GRAN'' the bird simply because she's a symbol of power, what with wearing the crown and all...

But thats just my speculation.


[edit on 20/6/10 by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Had to give you a star for that one.

In this time frame, at this moment, there is only one reason, coupled with the current feeling why this premise could have arisen.

I am just glad that someone at least has the balls to say it. even if it was a fellow englishman.

I just wish some the of the Kack casting yanks that have been swimming around here the last few days, had had the courage of conviction and just said what it was they were thinking.



[edit on 20/6/2010 by JakiusFogg]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I think the Brits have kept their royalty because it gives the country stability, at one time in Italy, they had a new government every six months! no royalty!
Take a look at any country with a really stable government, a lot of them have royalty, I'm talking Europe here, yes, some Communist countries were stable, but with a high price in personal freedoms, just take a good look at history, Egypt was stable for thousands of years, then Rome, no royal lineage, so all the civil wars, which led to Rome's ultimate downfall.
Buckingham palace, Windsor castle, trooping the colours, all the rest of it, brings in millions of foreign currency for the UK. The Exchequer makes a profit on the Royals.
I remember the USA going nuts over HRH Diana, princess of Wales.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
One more thing, Id rather sit with a Shaman which I have than any King, Queen, or Pope any time of the day ! if im looking for any kind of truth without exploitation so there you have it !



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
so the "queen" is respected by british people as their emissary and vassal as well as the church of england? i didnt know that about the coe.

noone has answered why she has a right in an assembly of nations; and noone has stated why heckling her is not representative of heckling capitalism or any other function her "progeny" has "manifested".

it seems illegal for her to represent what one poster has stated as her commonwealth; in an assembly of the un.on what legal grounds does a spiritual leader or patriarch have with an assembly of nations?

and since she is not a patriarch how is she leader of the church of england?


all you british trolls who want to derail this thread because of bp; go to the bp threads.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar

all you british trolls who want to derail this thread because of bp; go to the bp threads.


What about the American trolls? Where do they go?

Just out of interest?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
and since she is not a patriarch how is she leader of the church of england?


Because it isn't a Patriarchal society? Whoa, what a concept.




all you british trolls who want to derail this thread because of bp; go to the bp threads.


There you go friends. The mod has spoken.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join