[tlb]

>>> Should he have dinner with Roman Polanski?

Is Polanski the leader of a friendly government? Obligations of protocol are the issue. The Stalin comparison was deliberate. No criminal in the last century was more evil, but protocol required civility. Those in governmental service such as Winston understood this, and were adult enough to do their duty regardless of how they may have disapproved of Stalin.. Which is more then can be said here.

>>> I suppose if you represent a country it must make your obligations and choices a lot more difficult.

Precisely.

>>> In a sane world, I would agree.

As if the world of diplomacy has ever been sane.

>>> Go lecture Obama on protocol

We do it all the time. He humiliates his country regularly too. Proud of him for so doing ?

[DJ MacWoW]

Defend homosexuality all you like, these men made a principled stand not to “honor” sexual deviancy and mental illness.

[Dick Vomer]

I am in agreement with you. I think that a representative such as an elected Prime Minister should be met with in official meetings. However I think it's also the obligation of the visiting Prime Minister to respect customs of the host country. If she knows that a lesbian "wife" offends the sensibilities of the host country's religion, it's leader and it's people, then why bring her to a state dinner.

Bringing a pet dog on a trip to Saudi Arabia, or some other breech in etiquette is the obligation of both the host and the gracious visitor.

I agree that you have to meet Stalin, since he was the leader of a country.