6 ms·

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162

> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. I don't understand how these two sentences are related and the article doesn't explain it as far as I can tell. They seem to be vaguely insinuating that video games appropriating the red cross logo have caused these deaths, which is surely an absurd claim but I can't figure out what else they might mean. EDIT: A lot of defensive responses. To be clear, no one is impugning the Red Cross or disrespecting the work they're doing. I merely don't understand the reasoning in TFA.

bingidingi 5y ago
It's not an insinuation of anything, they're trying to emphasize the gravity of what they do to discourage casual use of the symbol. Their intention is in the headline.
chomp 5y ago
I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to violence.
- moron4hire 5y ago
  Putting those two sentences together is how you insuate such a thing. EDIT: There's a really big issue here with the public perception of the Red Cross. I expect most people think of the Red Cross as a purely benevolent organization. They're the folks with the bell-ringing Santa Clauses, for example. Who can argue with Santa Claus? So while most people are going to see this as "don't pick on the little, helpful people", if you're more familiar with the history the Red Cross, you'll be remembering some scandals they've been involved with. Some of that is accountable to the fact that it's a gigantic organization and corruption is not unavoidable at such a scale. But also, the stakes are so very high that you'd hope they had a better handle on it.
  - camjohnson26 5y ago
    The bell ringing Santa Claus is the Salvation Army, unless they both do it.
- trollman5000 5y ago
  Good.
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  This is an extraordinary naive comment. Claim is stronger than insinuate. claim: verb (used with object) to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due insinuate: verb (used with object) to suggest or hint slyly Sometimes one is forced to wonder if some people actually read what they write, or listen to what they say.
  - SamBam 5y ago
    [Claiming/insinuating] that using the Red Cross as a generic logo dilutes its symbolism, which could potentially lead to deaths is clearly a weaker statement than [claiming/insinuating] that its use in video games has caused specific deaths. It doesn't matter which the verb is, the second half of the first sentence is a much weaker, and more defensible, statement than GP's "vague insinuation" of a concrete incident. No, they are not insinuating that the use of the Red Cross in video games can be directly tied to specific deaths. Yes, they are insinuating, fairly clearly, that making the logo generic could lead to less recognition of the unique neutral status of the Red Cross, and this gradual loss of recognition could potentially lead to more deaths.
  - MattRix 5y ago
    Gotta love how you misread their comment and then accused them of not reading what they wrote.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
      Yep, that was pretty dumb of me. I have a tendency to be needlessly antagonist sometimes. I’m trying to improve.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone But didn’t that ship sail a century ago? Since exactly everything related to medical services/material/staff uses a red cross in the physical world, isn’t it natural that it does in movies (or games)? Is the argument here that it can be used when depicting proper use (e.g war movie or war game) but shouldn’t be used more than that since that’s the rule in the real world? That at least makes some sense. I have been an army medic myself with a red cross armband and while I knew that this was somehow related to the Geneva convention I wasn’t actually aware that it was the exclusive right of military medical staff. Every single gadget/vehicle/facility is plastered with the symbol so it sure feels like the generic “medical whatever” symbol.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    That's certainly not true in the UK. The British Red Cross use it, and the military presumably do in war zones, but everything else you'd think would have a red cross tends to have something else. White crosses on green first aid kits, blue star of life (or blue NHS logo) on ambulances, green crosses at pharmacies... Not saying getting here from there is ready. But it may be possible.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      Now that you mention it the same is what I saw: equipment had the cross on green while staff and vehicles used the white cross on a red circular bottom. I thought the choice was esthetic/camouflage but it’s the Geneva convention at work.
  - theodric 5y ago
    Their logo is just the flag of Evil Switzerland, anyway
jdavis703 5y ago
Seems to be a reference to geopolitical instability. In modern times (post WW II) the Red Cross is seen as responders to natural disasters. But it seems they feel they’re increasingly responding to man-made disasters (e.g. armed conflicts). That’s at least my interpretation. (Edited to clarify timeframe)
- gmueckl 5y ago
  Hiatorically, the Red Cross was foundes in response to the suffering caused by the Crimean War in the 1860s and their mission is to help people who get caught in armed comflicts. The symbol is protected by international law as a sign of medical facilities and medical personal who may not be attacked. Using the red cross for any other purspose is considered abusive and is formally a war crime. It may sound absurd, but keeping the narrow and important meaning of the symbol intact saves lives.
- sithadmin 5y ago
  This is entirely backwards. The International Committee of the Red Cross's roots are firmly fixed in a need to respond to armed conflict in 19th century Europe, and early national-level Red Cross groups focused on the same for quite some time. Disaster relief and public health came along much later.
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    Yeah, and if you believe police officers, nurses, and other first responders are public servants--as I do--then you should see the pay ranges of Red Cross "employees." They are definitely public servants (nearly unpaid compared to other first responders). Easily the best organization I have ever known or worked for.
dfdz 5y ago
I think this quotation best summarizes the article "When someone misuses the red cross,(the video game industry being just one of many), we seek their cooperation in ending the unauthorized use" The red cross is a protect trademark so this seems reasonable.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Right, but they could make that point without invoking the deaths, so presumably they're engaging in some kind of persuasion about why it's important to respect their trademark.
  - blooalien 5y ago
    Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue. Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are to persuade someone.
      - blooalien 5y ago
        I believe they're trying to convince folk that unapproved (over)use of their trademark "weakens the brand" in the minds of individuals enough that they worry it could lead to that symbol not affording the protection on the battlefield that it has traditionally enjoyed in the past, and therefore could lead to deaths which might have been avoided.
- aeternum 5y ago
  There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols. It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color. I'd like to see how much they spend on this, and will reconsider donating to the red cross in the future if they continue this foolhardy errand.
Justsignedup 5y ago
IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and throw a grenade that way. If I understand correctly the red cross will treat anyone regardless of the side they came in with.
- trollman5000 5y ago
  Sounds like you could just use the Red Cross symbol to lure unsuspecting victims to your location.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?
  - CobrastanJorji 5y ago
    Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-warehouses-1.401624 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/
    - trollman5000 5y ago
      We're talking about video games causing this, retard. One of your examples was an apparent mistake. One was done before video games. And one was done by Israelis.
    - Vaslo 5y ago
      So there were video games in 1935 that caused the Dolo air strike? I think the issue is around why (or whether) video games cause this, not if there were ever assholes who tried to bomb them.
w0de0 5y ago
“[As an example of an increasingly unstable world,] … there have been 162 fatalities. [Therefore the value of the Red Cross symbol must be protected as it is desperately needed.]” …
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  You're just restating the problem. I don't understand how "Therefore the value of the Red Cross symbol must be protected as it is desperately needed" follows from "[As an example of an increasingly unstable world,] … there have been 162 fatalities."
  - w0de0 5y ago
    1. The world is dangerous and people get hurt. 2. The Red Cross helps these people. 3. Their symbol is a tool which improves Red Cross's ability to help. 4. Misuse or casual use of the symbol dilutes its utility. 5. Therefore, please cease its casual use.
thiagoharry 5y ago
No, I don't see they claiming that the use in games caused these deaths. What I think they are claiming is that it is necessary to protect the symbol such that when we see it, we know that we really are dealing with the Red Cross, not with some other random thing related to medicine. And that if the symbol becames banalized, this takes away the protection that the symbol should bring to them. I understand this, but, perhaps in the long term they should consider using a more complex symbol, and including the Red Cross name in it. It is much more difficult to protect a symbol when it is so generic and simple to draw it.
hourislate 5y ago
Trying putting the whole article in context instead of picking apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the Red Cross Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's losing it's symbolism of humanitarian protection status and impartiality and as such are becoming a target in conflict zones.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  > Trying putting the whole article in context instead of picking apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the Red Cross Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's losing it's symbolism of humanitarian protection status and impartiality and as such are becoming a target in conflict zones. Wow that's a lot of snark. 1. I did read the entire article, I just didn't quote it all because that's not what quotes are for. Note that the site guidelines advise against accusations of not reading TFA. 2. "as such are becoming a target in conflict zones." So basically the absurd "videogames thus killings" argument that I addressed in my original post? 3. I got a couple dozen upvotes in a few minutes, so I'm not the only one confused by this.
  - bingidingi 5y ago
    The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification of the point they're trying to make. It's understandable, as video games are often wrongly attributed as creating violence... but that's not what they're saying. They don't want video games to stop representing medics, for example... they just don't want the red cross to be synonymous with health, because it's much more specific than that.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification. I was being terse, not bad faith. In particular, "videogames cause death" is not a less robust argument than "trademark appropriation can cause confusion which can cause death". Moreover, I'm specifically being charitable and saying "I don't think this is what TFA means because it's so ridiculous, but I can't identify a better likely meaning". But apparently there are a lot of people who think the "trademark violation => death" (again, brevity, not mockery) argument is serious, so I invite them to support their position with examples.
anoncake 5y ago
Has the world ever not been "increasingly uncertain"?
- thebooktocome 5y ago
  Some people seem to look back on the period of time between the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 as a relatively stable period in "the West".
sandworm101 5y ago
>> They seem to be vaguely insinuating ... What we say doesn't matter. What the Red Cross says doesn't matter. The Geneva Convention protects certain symbols. That's the end of the debate. The red cross/crescent is owned by the Red Cross and any use by anyone else is completely subject to their permission. This system was setup for a good reason. Those of us whose lives may one day be protected by that symbol (wounded soldiers) need it to remain above reproach. Every soldier may one day be bleeding on a cot in a field hospital, that symbol on the tent his only protection from instant death. The use of the red cross/crescent/crystal/star is not something that should be up for constitutional debate.
mcguire 5y ago
The Red Cross, Red Crescent, and new Red Crystal are specific logos (like all trademarked logos), with the additional aspect that they are recognized in international laws, including the Geneva Conventions. Vehicles, for example, carrying the Red Cross logos are not supposed to be fired upon (https://www.haaretz.com/1.4929066 https://www.haaretz.com/1.4929066), and no other vehicles are supposed to display the Red Cross logos. If you use the IBM logo or the ATT death star in an unauthorized fashion, you get a nastygram from IBM or ATT because you are diluting their brand. Diluting the brand of the Red Cross means that there is an increased likelihood of "mistakes", and a mistake in a combat zone is a bad thing.
surfsvammel 5y ago
Speculating here. In conflict zones, the red cross symbol has often protected them from being a target. It might have been one of the primary meanings and uses of the symbol. Could they mean, with those two sentences, that having the red cross be used, in for example, video games, for other meanings (like health pack or whatever) waters down that original important meaning of the symbol as the Red Cross organisation identity? I’m just speculating, but could it be that a combatant in war seeing a red cross previously though “that’s the Red Cross” while they today might, more often than before, just think: “that’s medics”?
wolverine876 5y ago
>> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. > I don't understand how these two sentences are related ... Lots of their people are getting killed; thus the protection provided by the emblem is very important to them.
machinehermiter 5y ago
I am an American with a life long love affair with Canada. I follow Canadian news and media pretty closely. Claims like these are what I read about all the time in Canada. As an American, to me their culture has moved to a very strange place as far as worry and blame.

bingidingi 5y ago

It's not an insinuation of anything, they're trying to emphasize the gravity of what they do to discourage casual use of the symbol. Their intention is in the headline.

chomp 5y ago

I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to violence.

moron4hire 5y ago
Putting those two sentences together is how you insuate such a thing. EDIT: There's a really big issue here with the public perception of the Red Cross. I expect most people think of the Red Cross as a purely benevolent organization. They're the folks with the bell-ringing Santa Clauses, for example. Who can argue with Santa Claus? So while most people are going to see this as "don't pick on the little, helpful people", if you're more familiar with the history the Red Cross, you'll be remembering some scandals they've been involved with. Some of that is accountable to the fact that it's a gigantic organization and corruption is not unavoidable at such a scale. But also, the stakes are so very high that you'd hope they had a better handle on it.
- camjohnson26 5y ago
  The bell ringing Santa Claus is the Salvation Army, unless they both do it.
trollman5000 5y ago
Good.
TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
This is an extraordinary naive comment. Claim is stronger than insinuate. claim: verb (used with object) to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due insinuate: verb (used with object) to suggest or hint slyly Sometimes one is forced to wonder if some people actually read what they write, or listen to what they say.
- SamBam 5y ago
  [Claiming/insinuating] that using the Red Cross as a generic logo dilutes its symbolism, which could potentially lead to deaths is clearly a weaker statement than [claiming/insinuating] that its use in video games has caused specific deaths. It doesn't matter which the verb is, the second half of the first sentence is a much weaker, and more defensible, statement than GP's "vague insinuation" of a concrete incident. No, they are not insinuating that the use of the Red Cross in video games can be directly tied to specific deaths. Yes, they are insinuating, fairly clearly, that making the logo generic could lead to less recognition of the unique neutral status of the Red Cross, and this gradual loss of recognition could potentially lead to more deaths.
- MattRix 5y ago
  Gotta love how you misread their comment and then accused them of not reading what they wrote.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    Yep, that was pretty dumb of me. I have a tendency to be needlessly antagonist sometimes. I’m trying to improve.
alkonaut 5y ago
> generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone But didn’t that ship sail a century ago? Since exactly everything related to medical services/material/staff uses a red cross in the physical world, isn’t it natural that it does in movies (or games)? Is the argument here that it can be used when depicting proper use (e.g war movie or war game) but shouldn’t be used more than that since that’s the rule in the real world? That at least makes some sense. I have been an army medic myself with a red cross armband and while I knew that this was somehow related to the Geneva convention I wasn’t actually aware that it was the exclusive right of military medical staff. Every single gadget/vehicle/facility is plastered with the symbol so it sure feels like the generic “medical whatever” symbol.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  That's certainly not true in the UK. The British Red Cross use it, and the military presumably do in war zones, but everything else you'd think would have a red cross tends to have something else. White crosses on green first aid kits, blue star of life (or blue NHS logo) on ambulances, green crosses at pharmacies... Not saying getting here from there is ready. But it may be possible.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    Now that you mention it the same is what I saw: equipment had the cross on green while staff and vehicles used the white cross on a red circular bottom. I thought the choice was esthetic/camouflage but it’s the Geneva convention at work.
- theodric 5y ago
  Their logo is just the flag of Evil Switzerland, anyway

jdavis703 5y ago

Seems to be a reference to geopolitical instability. In modern times (post WW II) the Red Cross is seen as responders to natural disasters. But it seems they feel they’re increasingly responding to man-made disasters (e.g. armed conflicts). That’s at least my interpretation. (Edited to clarify timeframe)

gmueckl 5y ago
Hiatorically, the Red Cross was foundes in response to the suffering caused by the Crimean War in the 1860s and their mission is to help people who get caught in armed comflicts. The symbol is protected by international law as a sign of medical facilities and medical personal who may not be attacked. Using the red cross for any other purspose is considered abusive and is formally a war crime. It may sound absurd, but keeping the narrow and important meaning of the symbol intact saves lives.
sithadmin 5y ago
This is entirely backwards. The International Committee of the Red Cross's roots are firmly fixed in a need to respond to armed conflict in 19th century Europe, and early national-level Red Cross groups focused on the same for quite some time. Disaster relief and public health came along much later.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Yeah, and if you believe police officers, nurses, and other first responders are public servants--as I do--then you should see the pay ranges of Red Cross "employees." They are definitely public servants (nearly unpaid compared to other first responders). Easily the best organization I have ever known or worked for.

dfdz 5y ago

I think this quotation best summarizes the article "When someone misuses the red cross,(the video game industry being just one of many), we seek their cooperation in ending the unauthorized use" The red cross is a protect trademark so this seems reasonable.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Right, but they could make that point without invoking the deaths, so presumably they're engaging in some kind of persuasion about why it's important to respect their trademark.
- blooalien 5y ago
  Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Presumably because persuasion is apparently necessary, as evidenced by some folk arguing against some of their reasoning or statements regarding the issue. Fine, so what's the persuasion in this case? Is it really "misuse of trademark in fiction media contributed to these killings of Red Cross personnel"? Because that's a pretty fantastic claim that requires evidence if you are to persuade someone.
    - blooalien 5y ago
      I believe they're trying to convince folk that unapproved (over)use of their trademark "weakens the brand" in the minds of individuals enough that they worry it could lead to that symbol not affording the protection on the battlefield that it has traditionally enjoyed in the past, and therefore could lead to deaths which might have been avoided.
aeternum 5y ago
There needs to be some minimum complexity for a trademark. A cross is one of the most common human symbols. It's ridiculous to attempt to police the world for the use of it in a certain color. I'd like to see how much they spend on this, and will reconsider donating to the red cross in the future if they continue this foolhardy errand.

Justsignedup 5y ago

IF you are in combat and you see a red cross vehicle, it is important for your first reaction being "that is not where the enemy is" vs firing at it. This saves lives, and protects those who run into danger zones to save people. If we slap red cross symbols on people with medical equipment that you see in video games, it'll just dilute the meaning and maybe next time someone sees a vehicle with the red cross symbol they'll think "oh, that's just the enemy's medics" and throw a grenade that way. If I understand correctly the red cross will treat anyone regardless of the side they came in with.

trollman5000 5y ago
Sounds like you could just use the Red Cross symbol to lure unsuspecting victims to your location.
throwaway894345 5y ago
Is there even a single documented case where this has happened?
- CobrastanJorji 5y ago
  Of Red Cross buildings/vehicles/personnel being bombed? Lots of them. Here are the first three I found on Google. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolo_hospital_airstrike https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-warehouses-1.401624 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/us-admits-bombing-red-cross-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523489/
  - trollman5000 5y ago
    We're talking about video games causing this, retard. One of your examples was an apparent mistake. One was done before video games. And one was done by Israelis.
  - Vaslo 5y ago
    So there were video games in 1935 that caused the Dolo air strike? I think the issue is around why (or whether) video games cause this, not if there were ever assholes who tried to bomb them.

w0de0 5y ago

“[As an example of an increasingly unstable world,] … there have been 162 fatalities. [Therefore the value of the Red Cross symbol must be protected as it is desperately needed.]” …

throwaway894345 5y ago
You're just restating the problem. I don't understand how "Therefore the value of the Red Cross symbol must be protected as it is desperately needed" follows from "[As an example of an increasingly unstable world,] … there have been 162 fatalities."
- w0de0 5y ago
  1. The world is dangerous and people get hurt. 2. The Red Cross helps these people. 3. Their symbol is a tool which improves Red Cross's ability to help. 4. Misuse or casual use of the symbol dilutes its utility. 5. Therefore, please cease its casual use.

thiagoharry 5y ago

No, I don't see they claiming that the use in games caused these deaths. What I think they are claiming is that it is necessary to protect the symbol such that when we see it, we know that we really are dealing with the Red Cross, not with some other random thing related to medicine. And that if the symbol becames banalized, this takes away the protection that the symbol should bring to them. I understand this, but, perhaps in the long term they should consider using a more complex symbol, and including the Red Cross name in it. It is much more difficult to protect a symbol when it is so generic and simple to draw it.

hourislate 5y ago

Trying putting the whole article in context instead of picking apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the Red Cross Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's losing it's symbolism of humanitarian protection status and impartiality and as such are becoming a target in conflict zones.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> Trying putting the whole article in context instead of picking apart two sentences. What they're saying is that the Red Cross Emblem is being watered down, so much so that it's losing it's symbolism of humanitarian protection status and impartiality and as such are becoming a target in conflict zones. Wow that's a lot of snark. 1. I did read the entire article, I just didn't quote it all because that's not what quotes are for. Note that the site guidelines advise against accusations of not reading TFA. 2. "as such are becoming a target in conflict zones." So basically the absurd "videogames thus killings" argument that I addressed in my original post? 3. I got a couple dozen upvotes in a few minutes, so I'm not the only one confused by this.
- bingidingi 5y ago
  The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification of the point they're trying to make. It's understandable, as video games are often wrongly attributed as creating violence... but that's not what they're saying. They don't want video games to stop representing medics, for example... they just don't want the red cross to be synonymous with health, because it's much more specific than that.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > The argument is that diluting the mark can cause confusion, and that confusion can cause death. "Videogames cause death" feels like a bad-faith oversimplification. I was being terse, not bad faith. In particular, "videogames cause death" is not a less robust argument than "trademark appropriation can cause confusion which can cause death". Moreover, I'm specifically being charitable and saying "I don't think this is what TFA means because it's so ridiculous, but I can't identify a better likely meaning". But apparently there are a lot of people who think the "trademark violation => death" (again, brevity, not mockery) argument is serious, so I invite them to support their position with examples.

anoncake 5y ago

Has the world ever not been "increasingly uncertain"?

thebooktocome 5y ago
Some people seem to look back on the period of time between the fall of the Berlin Wall and 9/11 as a relatively stable period in "the West".

sandworm101 5y ago

>> They seem to be vaguely insinuating ... What we say doesn't matter. What the Red Cross says doesn't matter. The Geneva Convention protects certain symbols. That's the end of the debate. The red cross/crescent is owned by the Red Cross and any use by anyone else is completely subject to their permission. This system was setup for a good reason. Those of us whose lives may one day be protected by that symbol (wounded soldiers) need it to remain above reproach. Every soldier may one day be bleeding on a cot in a field hospital, that symbol on the tent his only protection from instant death. The use of the red cross/crescent/crystal/star is not something that should be up for constitutional debate.

mcguire 5y ago

The Red Cross, Red Crescent, and new Red Crystal are specific logos (like all trademarked logos), with the additional aspect that they are recognized in international laws, including the Geneva Conventions. Vehicles, for example, carrying the Red Cross logos are not supposed to be fired upon (https://www.haaretz.com/1.4929066 https://www.haaretz.com/1.4929066), and no other vehicles are supposed to display the Red Cross logos. If you use the IBM logo or the ATT death star in an unauthorized fashion, you get a nastygram from IBM or ATT because you are diluting their brand. Diluting the brand of the Red Cross means that there is an increased likelihood of "mistakes", and a mistake in a combat zone is a bad thing.

surfsvammel 5y ago

Speculating here. In conflict zones, the red cross symbol has often protected them from being a target. It might have been one of the primary meanings and uses of the symbol. Could they mean, with those two sentences, that having the red cross be used, in for example, video games, for other meanings (like health pack or whatever) waters down that original important meaning of the symbol as the Red Cross organisation identity? I’m just speculating, but could it be that a combatant in war seeing a red cross previously though “that’s the Red Cross” while they today might, more often than before, just think: “that’s medics”?

wolverine876 5y ago

>> In an increasingly uncertain world, this protective use of the red cross emblem has become more and more important. In the past ten years, there have been 162 fatalities among Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement personnel including two Canadians. > I don't understand how these two sentences are related ... Lots of their people are getting killed; thus the protection provided by the emblem is very important to them.

machinehermiter 5y ago

I am an American with a life long love affair with Canada. I follow Canadian news and media pretty closely. Claims like these are what I read about all the time in Canada. As an American, to me their culture has moved to a very strange place as far as worry and blame.