Red Cross Says Theater Nurse Costume Violates The Geneva Conventions
from the this-is-torture dept
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:"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.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.
"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."
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are you sure?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ugh....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oops
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
{Edit functions requested for billionth time!}
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well... I guess I'm not *that* shocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are there really people like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Star Wars quote of the day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ugh....
/shivers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ugh....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Non-neutral?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Star Wars quote of the day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
OK, so the message is DON'T KILL THIS ACTRESS!
Where's the confusion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
it might, however, mean there is treasure buried in the nurse's head
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A symbol and it's sanctity
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 thread ]
The 'Red Cross' is owned by Johnston & Johnston.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oops
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 thread ]
Ridiculous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Additional info
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A symbol and it's sanctity
Damn, this is vexing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A symbol and it's sanctity
Blaze away, sir. Blaze away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Star Wars quote of the day
By orthographic extrapolation I'm assuming it would be spelled "shepleherd"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the Red Cross has so much money...
Don't fund bullies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Red Cross - It's not theirs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George's_Cross
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Oops
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My list is growing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or somebody com... fuck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]