Red Cross Says Theater Nurse Costume Violates The Geneva Conventions

from the this-is-torture dept

Thu, Jan 13th 2011 9:22am — Mike Masnick

Joe Publius alerts us to a story that I had to check multiple times to make sure wasn't satire. Apparently the British Red Cross got upset that nurse the costume used in a small theater production of a pantomime of Robin Hood (don't ask) included the standard red cross on the hat and the tunic as seen below:

According to the Red Cross, this was an unauthorized use of the Red Cross emblem, which represented a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

"We have no desire to be the villains of the pantomime or to appear heavy handed, but we do have a very serious obligation to protect the Red Cross emblem.

"The emblem is a special sign of neutrality and protection recognised by all sides during armed conflicts.

"Misuse of that emblem - even when done in an innocent and light-hearted manner - has to be addressed. Repeated and widespread misuse of the Red Cross emblem could dilute its neutrality and its ability to protect."

I don't buy that at all. It's not like someone was going to get confused by this use in a pantomime production of Robin Hood. The idea that this dilutes the legitimate symbol seems like a huge stretch. Either way, the production swapped the red cross out for green crosses, as if that really makes any difference.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: geneva conventions, red cross, robin hood, theater
Companies: red cross

53 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 9:34am

I specifically refused to wear a red cross while in Iraq for a very simple reason: It doesn't protect the wearer from anything unless it is recognized by all the combatants. Most military medical personnel in combat zones won't wear them and I think its a joke to put them on ambulances and hospitals. Just gives the bad guys an aiming point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bADiTCH, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  We were told not to wear the red cross as it makes you a primary target.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    We were told not to wear the red cross as it makes you a primary target.
    
    Iraq signed the Geneva Convention sections I-IV in 1956, but they could certainly argue that those who signed it were "pre-Sadam" and thus Iraq was no longer interested in upholding the requirements of GC. Terrorist organizations and Jihadists certainly aren't bound to the rules, so they aren't required to follow the rules either. As such, the US considers them "Non-Lawful Combatants", and the rules are different than when fighting "Lawful Combatants." Certainly nobody is expected to receive special treatment for wearing a red cross, and no quarter will likely be given to someone who is associated with the military with one.
    
    I seem to remember that during WWII, Japanese soldiers would purposefully shoot corpsmen, because they reasoned that they could kill more people that way, since corpsmen would often rush to the aid of wounded soldiers, and without corpsmen, those soldiers would often die.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 9:48am

Are you sure?
Looks like a red plus to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 9:50am

The only thing stupider than the Red Cross's complaint is a blog repeating it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ron Rezendes (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  Studier than that would be an AC comment on how stupid it was. Luckily we won't see that here...oops!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ron Rezendes (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Stupider even...
    
    {Edit functions requested for billionth time!}
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What, and ruin all our fun having a chuckle at your expense? That's just selfish.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Stupider than an AC commenting on how stupid is for a blog to comment on how stupid the stupid was stupid is a commenter commenting on how stupid the AC is for commenting how stupid it is for a blog to comment how...uh...Woodchucks?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:31am
      
      Star Wars quote of the day
      "Who's more foolish the fool or the fool who follows him?"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:17am
        
        Re: Star Wars quote of the day
        I don't know, ask the sheeple around here. My drummer goes a different way, but it doesn't stop me from laughing at the bleating of the woolly masses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
        ahh, "sheeple" - clarion call of the angsty teenager with very little to actually say
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
        "ahh, "sheeple" - clarion call of the angsty teenager with very little to actually say"
        
        More a clarion of David Icke and his eternal oddness. He gives a horrid name to all those that believe in a conspiracy or two....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
        Indeed. Obviously the herd mentality is a real thing, but it's a complex social phenomenon that can affect even the smartest and most self-aware among us - it's hardly as simple as "people are like sheep"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joe Publius, 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
        Exactly what a sheeple would say lest their blind conformity keep them up at night!
        
        By the way, who leads a flock of sheeple anyway? A Sheepleherder?
        
        Also, would A Flock of Sheeple be a good name for a New Wave Conspiracy Theory-themed band?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
        By the way, who leads a flock of sheeple anyway? A Sheepleherder?
        
        By orthographic extrapolation I'm assuming it would be spelled "shepleherd"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2011 @ 6:02pm
  
  Re:
  Or somebody commenting on said blog.
  Or somebody com... fuck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 9:50am

Ugh....
That nurse looks like Cookie from the Bozo the Clown show....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: Ugh....
  I was thinking more Mimi from the Drew Carey Show...
  
  /shivers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Ugh....
  No, no, that's TAM's mom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 9:52am

Oops
Next up, Legos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ComputerAddict (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re: Oops
  Hey thats "Lego brand building blocks" to you buddy
  
  Legos.com old page... they've since let up a bit...
  
  http://web.archive.org/web/20050208032604/www.lego.com/errors/legos.asp?domainredir=www.le gos.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Idobek (profile), 14 Jan 2011 @ 11:00am
    
    Re: Re: Oops
    I had never seen (or heard of) Lego being referred to as "Legos" until I saw it on on Techdirt recently. Is it an American er... colloquialism (I guess that's the word)?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:01am

Next
Next to be sued: every porn studio that has made a naughty nurse video for the past 40 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:09am

Remember: If your daughter's Halloween costume is a nurse outfit, don't be surprised when she gets taken away by men in a black van. It's your own fault for violating the Geneva Convention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:11am

I always knew Jim Davidson was some kind of evil, but violating the geneva convention?

Well... I guess I'm not *that* shocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:13am

Are there really people like that?
I mean, they seemed to think that becoming a lawyer required a frontal lobotomy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:16am

Since when are theater groups bound to follow the Geneva Conventions

The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:26am

Rotate it 45 degrees (ie, bend over) and it is an X not a + and as such, if it is red it is a target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:38am
  
  Re:
  If a nurse gets shot, you're so going to regret that comment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:45am
  
  Re:
  typically targets are still crosses - thus crosshairs
  
  it might, however, mean there is treasure buried in the nurse's head
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrWilson, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:30am

Great. Now they're going to get sued by Green Cross International because someone might mistake them for nurses who support environmental responsibility.

This is the problem with IP laws. Suddenly depicting reality or referencing the way things actually are violates someone else's trademark or copyright.

You can't reveal that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes anymore because someone thinks they own the concept of royal nudity (British tabloids, maybe?).

Your truth violates my copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  remember this is not an IP suit but the fact that they are breaking a treaty ratified by some countries to no kill medical personnel. Sadly even the US tends to ignore it at time (I will say not on purpose but some of the shootings are not exactly legal...keep that on the down low...)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    "remember this is not an IP suit but the fact that they are breaking a treaty ratified by some countries to no kill medical personnel."
    
    OK, so the message is DON'T KILL THIS ACTRESS!
    
    Where's the confusion?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe Publius, 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    remember this is not an IP suit but the fact that they are breaking a treaty ratified by some countries to no kill medical personnel.
    
    On a serious note, and to reinforce my previous statement, that's why this story appealed to me more than the standard "Trademark misuse" story. Again, doesn't change my opinion, but it was an interesting dimension.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:35am

What should have been said to the Red Cross in response to their claims is just a two-word reply: "Prove it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:50am

I'd think that a red cross would be a generic symbol of the medical profession. I could understand (maybe, maaaaaaybe) limiting its use in the professional field, and certainly when soliciting donations, but the fact is that the symbol has become an emblem for all medical systems in some places. Do they honestly expect the public to disassociate that symbol? Also, thanks for reminding me not to do any math with red ink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:08am
  
  Re:
  The plus shaped cross, yes. A red one, no. They're usually pretty good about making sure it's blue or green or a big H instead of using the Red Cross cross.
  
  What I don't get is film and stage have traditionally been exempt from this. Think M.A.S.H. or any number of war movies.
  
  Not that it would really matter for US medical personnel lately. None of our current enemies respect any aspect of the Geneva Convention. Might as well be the Red Crosshairs for all the good it does.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Huph, 13 Jan 2011 @ 2:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I was just thinking the same thing about TV and movies and more specifically: video games. Duke Nukem 3D uses the red cross emblem to denote all health pickups. And that game only springs to mind because I've been playing it a lot lately. If my memory serves me correctly, a red cross has been used to designate health items redundantly in countless video games.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 10:51am

This is totally legit. If a terrorist was to attack the theater you wouldn't want then to not kill the nurse by mistake thinking she was a non combatant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scarr (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:05am

Non-neutral?
Is the panto not a neutral party in this situation? Does (s)he leave the theatre and invade France at some point during the performance? How is this diluting or altering the meaning of the symbol in any way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Publius, 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:47am

A symbol and it's sanctity
When I first read the article, I thought, Hey, this is right up Techdirt's alley, only really strange!, and I'm actually a little surprised that it made the muster.

When I first pondered the story, I too thought of the Red Cross response in terms of Trademark, the misguided idea that every use has to be defended or else the mark is diluted. But I decided that though still misguided, they and Convention by extension, were motivated by their own impression of the sanctity and value of the Red Cross as a symbol.

In the end that motivation doesn't convince me that, simply because if the symbol really has that kind of value, people will know when the use is serious or not, and no amount of use in pantomimes or other movies will affect that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re: A symbol and it's sanctity
  So, wait. I can shoot the actress? Or not.?
  
  Damn, this is vexing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Joe Publius, 13 Jan 2011 @ 1:47pm
    
    Re: Re: A symbol and it's sanctity
    If she's pointing a gun at you? Why take chances?
    Blaze away, sir. Blaze away.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnny canada, 13 Jan 2011 @ 11:57am

Why does the Red Cross through a fit every time some uses that emblem .

The 'Red Cross' is owned by Johnston & Johnston.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Ronas, 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:14pm

Ridiculous
It's reasons like this that some people are hesitant to donate money. I understand there is always some type of overhead to running an organization, especially one as large as Red Cross, but does the money they have really need to go to overhead like such as silly cases like this? They could use it to save more lives, and instead they're wasting time and money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scarr (profile), 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:27pm

Additional info
This helped me understand the usage requirements, and thus the British Red Cross' claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Use_of _the_emblems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 12:41pm

This isn't the first time they have done this, they cried about medics in first person shooter video games using it also. Apparently thing like this are far more important than making sure that aid is properly distributed in Haiti.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2011 @ 2:09pm

If the Red Cross has so much money...
that they can afford to waste it bullying people like this, I suggest no one should donate to them.

Don't fund bullies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Till Mechanic (profile), 14 Jan 2011 @ 5:03am

Red Cross - It's not theirs
Look's like a stylised Saint George's Cross to me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George's_Cross
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2011 @ 6:18am

I heard this news on the radio as the story broke last week. Apparently, the only reason the RC picked up on this was that a member of the RC was attending the theater to watch the production at the time. I'm sure their own sense of self-importance was greatly elevated by the exercise... which, personally, seems to be the whole point, to me at least.

The radio program that followed was filled with callers informing that they had cancelled their RC subscriptions.

Hurrah RC.... you complete and utter morons!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2011 @ 6:19am
  
  Re:
  *subsciption/donations
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idobek (profile), 14 Jan 2011 @ 11:12am

My list is growing
Yet another one to add to my list of charities not to give money to. Usually they get added for being majority funded by the taxpayer or my disagreement with the cause. This might be the first for "being bloody stupid".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]