Red Cross mulls 'neutral' emblem

[Nono]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4497840.stm

In Geneva diplomats from the 192 countries which have signed the Geneva conventions are meeting to discuss a third emblem for the international Red Cross. Red Cross officials hope approval of a third emblem will finally put an end to decades of controversy over the issue. (...)

[rmnunez]

The decades of controversy stem from the association of the Red Cross emblem with Christianity, so we can't have the International Red Cross delivering help sporting crosses, this would be offensive to Muslims and others. In fact the emblem is the Swiss flag inverted, it was chosen because the institution originated in that country, has nothing to do with Christianity.

[shield772]

You have got to be frikin kidding me.

[jt1012751]

This is fine. Anything to get more people out their helping people. You don't want your medics getting shot because they have an illegitimate "Red Cross" logo.

Israel is just being stubborn if they do not realize that adopting a standard logo would allow them to acess the injured faster. Also, the Star of David is a Jewish and Israelie symbol, unlike the cross or a moon, which may be associated with religion (christianity and islam respectively) but can also be normal figures. The Star of David is never used without a Jewish/Israelie mention.

[tusaki]

Quote by: rmnunez The decades of controversy stem from the association of the Red Cross emblem with Christianity, so we can't have the International Red Cross delivering help sporting crosses, this would be offensive to Muslims and others. In fact the emblem is the Swiss flag inverted, it was chosen because the institution originated in that country, has nothing to do with Christianity.

and the Swiss flag has a cross because.... hey! Europe was Christian but I agree, the founder didn't choose the symbol out of religious association. I wonder what they will come up with.. a square maybe?

[Scribbler1]

It isn't even a cross, really. A real cross is more like a T than an X turned 45 degrees.

And if you want to change the symbol because these scumbags are shooting at people wearing it, what do you think will happen when these same people find out what the NEW emblem looks like? I don't see it as a religious thing, but more of a "shoot them because they heal the wounded and make my enemy fit to fight again" thing.

[RickSp]

The BBC article initially gives the impression that the problem is just the "cross". If you read the entire article it also relates to the Red Crescent. The press release from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is more succinct.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies uses as its "logo" two globally recognized emblems - the Red Cross and the Red Crescent - set on a white background within a red rectangle. The Federation's member National Societies use or one or other of these emblems; either the cross or the crescent. The International Federation can use both emblems indicatively because it is neither a state nor a National Society. Unfortunately, the emblems are sometimes perceived as having religious, cultural or political connotations. This has affected respect for the emblems especially in certain conflict situations and has diminished the protection the emblems offer to victims and to humanitarian and medical personnel. The adoption of an additional emblem would enable Societies that find it difficult to use either the red cross or the red crescent to become members of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

Given the environment that all the Red Cross/Red Crescent has to work in, a neutral symbol doesn't seem like a bad idea.

[jt1012751]

I'm not sure that someone would shoot a person with a red cross/moon on their shoulder, I hope they have more honor than that. Then again, people are killing innocent civillians so, honor isn't really a factor.

[shield772]

They chose the red + because it has been for many decades been used as a symbol for medical personell and equipment which under international law is not under any circumstances supposed to fired upon.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: jt1012751 I'm not sure that someone would shoot a person with a red cross/moon on their shoulder, I hope they have more honor than that. Then again, people are killing innocent civillians so, honor isn't really a factor.

I'm glad you mentioned that last part. From where I sit I see NO honor in ANY of the cowards who blow up innocent people.

[jt1012751]

Right, the Red Cross/Crecent[/Square??] is only good protection as long as the people abide to the laws of war set up by the Geneva Convention. If you havent read the Geneva Convention I reccomend you do it, it explains all the prisoner of war and medical stuff[Google: Geneva Convention 3].

[Punkbuster]

It is just another "religion neutral" thing that is supposed to make the world a better place. (Even in this case if it is not a religious symbol). We will see how our world turns out after all vestiges of Christiainity are removed from the public display by Western civ.

[RickSp]

We are discussing symbols - specifically the Crescent and the Cross and how people respond to the symbols in a region where the history of Crusades is still vital to present day. A recent History Channel documentary on the Crusades was called the "Crescent and the Cross" It makes perfect sense to me to avoid any possibility of being associated with either the Crusader's Cross or the Jihadi's Crescent if your only interest is in providing humanitarian aid.

[Nono]

If the "red crystal" is adopted, it will be used, at most, by the Israeli and, perhaps, Kazakh national societies. The others will continue to use the cross or crescent, both of which are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross will, of course, continue to use the cross, as it has since the 1860s.

The whole thing has come about because of the Israelis using the red star of David and the absurd political pressure exerted by the US in their support. And by bloody-minded Arab intransigence to finding a practical solution.

My view is that the crescent never should have been enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, but that was done in 1929, so it's way too late now.

The whole idea originally was to have one emblem, easily recognized at a distance and easy to paint in a hurry to protect field hospitals and hospital ships in wartime. Since the Red Cross was founded in Switzerland and backed diplomatically by the Swiss government, the red cross -- an inversion of the Swiss flag -- became the emblem.
Then, already in 1871, the Turks made a pain in the ass of themselves by refusing to use the red cross.

If the crystal can allow a return to a semblance of neutrality -- a principle on which the entire Red Cross / Red Crescent movement is founded -- then it's high time.

[tinybear]

*Sigh* Political correctness can be so absurd.

[shield772]

Yes it can, and it can also be incredibley harmful.

[Clarence]

The Red Cross needs a real leader to uphold it's ideals. If the Red Cross didn't exist or continues to lose credibility, this world will have lost a major force for the light.

[Nono]

The protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions providing for a red crystal emblem was adopted in the wee hours of this morning.

The Swiss hosts (being Swiss) had desired a decision by consensus, but hard-ass wrangling by the Israelis and Syrians made this impossible, so the draft was put to a vote, with 98 countries in favour, 10 opposed and 10 abstentions. Of course, Israel is surrounded by countries that opposed it. So it goes.

After the vote, the Syrian delegate launched into a sustained rant about how the world would live to regret this. What can you do? It's a poor solution, but the least bad achievable one.

[rmnunez]

I don't understand why its called a Red Crystal, looks more like a box or square to me.

[Nono]

There was a great deal of discussion about what to call it. (And hell, you can imagine the hunt that went on for a geometric shape that has no religious significance or, as the ICRC spokesman wisely put it the other day, "that we know of as yet...".) Some wanted to call it a "diamond". I like "crystal" -- it's upbeat and sounds fresh.

Also, it makes for the initials RC, so if and when the Israelis, Kazakhs or whoever adopt it, it will be the International Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal Movenement.