Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Research Blogs -> Information Overload
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Research
: Information OverloadPanto gets Red Cross, cross.
By scott
I was interested to read this week that the Glasgow Pavilion’s production of The Magical Aventures of Robin Hood found itself in hot water for having a nurse wearing an outfit featuring a red cross on it. No, no, no, said The Red Cross, that’s in breach of the Geneva Convention.
Seriously?
That can’t be right I thought. The Convention itself can’t actually say that…can it?
Yes it can and it does. Apparently under the Geneva Convention (as amended) it is indeed a potential CRIMINAL offense to use the red cross [with arms of equal length on a white background ] without the permissionof the government.
According to the ICRC By virtue of Article 54 of the First Geneva Convention of 1949, States are under the obligation to take the measures required to prevent and repress at all times any misuse of the emblem. This provision is worded as follows : ” The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of the abuses referred to under Article 53 ” .
Insofar as the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols protect, in addition to the emblem, the name of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent, the distinctive identification signals and the white cross on a red ground, these must also be protected by national legislation.
The reason for this stance is that in time of war, the emblem is the visible sign of the protection conferred by the Geneva Conventions on medical personnel and medical units and transports, and according to the ICRC for this protection to be effective in time of war, the relevant rules of international law must be strictly respected in peacetime ? i.e people whether individuals, charities, plays etc are not entitled to use it, even if that use is not intended to dilute that meaning of the emblem.
In the UK the relevant legislation is the Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Act 2009, which amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the United Nations Personnel Act 1997.
Section 6(1) of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 states: “Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall not be lawful for any person, without the authority of the [F14Secretary of State], to use for any purpose whatsoever any of the following F15. . .; that is to say? (a) the emblem of a red cross with vertical and horizontal arms of the same length on, and completely surrounded by, a white ground ?”
Full post as published by Information Overload on January 14, 2011 (boomark / email).
Anthem Blue Cross
Settles with California
Horizon Blue Cross
Settles Anorexia Class Action
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Settle with California
Unsuitable Blood
FDA fines Red Cross $4.6 million for distributing tainted blood products.
Blue Cross Blue Shield
alleging they have refused coverage for austic children

Cross-Examination: Some Representative Posts
American Red Cross lands right cross against J&J
Trial Techniques - The Art of Cross-Examination Part II
Trial Techniques - The Art of Cross-Examination - Part V
Court Rules In Favor of Red Cross in Lawsuit with Johnson & Johnson








