Proceeding contribution from Angela Watkinson (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 thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene; he is making a very powerful speech. Does he agree that, in designing a new symbol, if so much effort goes into making it totally non-contentious and impossible to interpret, so that no person, group, country, religion or faith could be offended by it, there is a danger that the result will have none of the power, impact or values of the traditional symbols, which creates the dilemma that we may lose all the associated features of the red cross in a non-contentious red crystal?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 490 c968-9
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:42:21 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545760
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545760
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_545760