Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from John Hayes (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]

That is true. However, if we were to be cowed by everyone who took offence at the use of these symbols, the red cross might never have been established as it was, with the immense benefits to all concerned, and we would have ended up with symbols from every nation or state without the universality that I recommend to the House so strongly, and which is increasingly significant in a world that is global in character in respect of conflict, tension, terrorism, humanitarian aid and many other things. That was recognised by the Liberal spokesman in the House of Lords, who described the increasingly international nature of these matters as a reason for the adoption of the red crystal. I take the opposite view that the increasingly international nature of the things I described reaffirms the case for a single symbol. That might be the crescent, as my hon. Friend suggests, or more properly and logically, it might be the cross.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
490 c969-70 
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