Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Simon Burns (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 April 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [Lords].


Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [Lords]

I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he accept that if one were to have too many symbols, it would dilute recognition and understanding? To answer an earlier point, it may well be a problem for Jewish people from Israel to have a red crescent and, possibly, a red cross. It may also be a problem for Hindus in India to have a red crescent or a red cross. Surely the way forward is to have a third, all-embracing symbol for those cultures and peoples who find Christianity and Islam not acceptable, but not to dilute it by having regional, religious or ethnic variations, which could cause total incomprehension.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
490 c949 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Armed forces Armed conflict Development aid Humanitarian aid Geneva Conventions Health professions Protection Peacekeeping operations Staff Treaties United Nations Safety Israel Palestine Logos Reconstruction International Red Cross International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Red Crescent
Legislation
Geneva Conventions Act 1957
Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill (HL) 2008-09
United Nations Personnel Act 1997
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk