Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

redcross.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 253 posts

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#191

Post by theodric »

alkonaut wrote: post #173
chomp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they are insinuating that. I think they are claiming that pulling the Red Cross into public domain dilutes its symbolism from the neutral humanitarian organization they intend it to stand for, to "generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone", which could potentially open personnel up to violence.

> generic medical symbol potentially used by anyone But didn’t that ship sail a century ago? Since exactly everything related to medical services/material/staff uses a red cross in the physical world, isn’t it natural that it does in movies (or games)? Is the argument here that it can be used when depicting proper use (e.g war movie or war game) but shouldn’t be used more than that since that’s the rule in the real w…

Their logo is just the flag of Evil Switzerland, anyway

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#193

Post by jsmith45 »

jldugger wrote: post #121
krtkush wrote: post #19

What does misuse particularly mean here? I couldn't gather that. Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse? Can a random private hospital not use the red cross?

>Does a child's toy, which is supposed to represent a first aid kit, with the red cross on it constitute a misuse? The important thing about the Red Cross and its brand is that they are neutral. The Genova convention declared they get a special marker, and a rule against harming them in wartime. A US army doctor presumably does not seek out to treat both sides of the conflict, and does not get the special protection…

> A US army doctor presumably does not seek out to treat both sides of the conflict, and does not get the special protection the rules of engagement afford to the Red Cross.

The protective use of the Red Cross, is subject to the conditions of the Geneva Conventions, and only those rules. What any particular Red Cross organization feels is completely irrelevant. These rules allow use by one side of the conflict's own medics, among other things. There is no treating both sides rule or anything like that.

Protective use of the symbol in an inappropriate context is a war crime. As is ignoring the symbol and firing upon a protected facility.

The Geneva conventions also allow indicative use of the symbols by International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement organizations. It is only supposed to be used by those organizations in this indicative sense, but it is not viewed as a war crime when this is violated.

Using the symbol in a game as a generic symbol for healing or medics is wrong. Use of the the symbol in the protective fashion in video games is arguably fine, as long as the game also treats ignoring the symbol as a war crime. I'm not sure I've ever seen a game where the player gets court marshaled if they fire upon an enemy's medics wearing the red cross symbol though, which is a real problem, and dilutes the meaning of the symbol.

One weird thing here is that for example, the American Red cross licenses the use of the symbol for purposes like first aid kits very much like those found in video games. This is in addition to the well known Johnson and Johnson trademark allowing them to use it on their first aid kits too.

The First Geneva convention article 39 allows the military to order that the symbol be on equipment used by in battle are supposed to have the symbol on it, so they would very much could carry first aid kits with a red cross on it.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#194

Post by dwaltrip »

junar wrote: post #174
dwaltrip wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also like to know how!

Well, parent comment mentioned Mac, so the correct answer is Option, Shift, and - (hyphen). There are many other characters that Macs can type with the Option key.

Thanks! That is great.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#195

Post by bingidingi »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #184
bingidingi wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason someone may be confused when encountering a real police box for the first time. The misuse of the red cross, especially in video games, is rampant to the point that the Red Cross is worried about confusion. There's additional issue with the fact that video games are very common, but warzones and disaster areas l…

> It's about the ubiquity in fiction. If every police box in fiction was a time machine, it stands to reason someone may be confused when encountering a real police box for the first time. This is the silliest thing I've ever heard, and not every fictional red cross symbol is a threat anyway. This whole thing seems at least as ridiculous as the moral panic about violent video games in the early 2000s, except that I k…

Asking works of fiction to stop using a symbol doesn't seem at all like a moral panic to me. What they're saying is "this symbol has a specific meaning, and it's important to us that it's not diluted."

They're not calling for video games to be banned or even re-labeled, they're just trying to prevent the red cross from losing the intended meaning (which comes with an international treaty intended to protect aid workers)... it seems like the method of applying this mostly consists of asking nicely.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#196

Post by theodric »

yellow_lead wrote: post #45

> Under the Charter Act that was adopted in 1900 under the Geneva Convention (and later amended in 1905 and again in 1910)3, the American Red Cross has the exclusive right to use a red Greek cross4 on a white field, with the only exception being that any user of such an emblem prior to 1905 would continue to have the right to use the emblem. Registrations owned by Johnson & Johnson for red Greek crosses date from 190…

I find this Swiss military ambulance hilarious: https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/mid20th-century-swiss-a...

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#197

Post by tablespoon »

> the emblem has been improperly displayed by individuals, businesses and organizations in a vast range of uses from first aid suppliers through to children’s toys.

It looks like the the American and Canadian Red Cross(es) actually sell first aid supplies with the emblem: https://www.redcross.org/store/first-aid-supplies, https://products.redcross.ca/. Is the issue that the emblem is on first aid supplies at all, or just first aid supplies made by other organizations?

I don't really get the connection between that activity and:

> In fact, the red cross emblem is an important symbol of humanitarian protection. It is recognized as such in both Canadian and international law which prohibit its unauthorized use. Misuse of this valued symbol distorts its meaning and its protective value for victims of conflict and the aid workers that assist them.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#198

Post by MrStonedOne »

crooked-v wrote: post #92
stewx wrote: post #24

To the extent that the symbol is used for regaining health and being treated for injuries in games, I don't think it detracts at all from the Red Cross mission. That being said, if the symbol was being used as the emblem of an evil army or crime syndicate in a game, I could understand them having a problem with it, however.

> I don't think it detracts at all from the Red Cross mission Part of the point of the symbol is to indicate the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, specifically, which keeps to strict neutrality in wartime. If it starts getting used willy-nilly it puts their members at greater risk because they are no longer clearly delineated from the medical services or army medics of specific countries.

Army medics use and wear the red cross, your argument is invalid.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#199

Post by bingidingi »

pugworthy wrote: post #185
bingidingi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Where do you get this confidence that there's no confusion with the green cross? The continents of Europe, Africa, Australia... I've also seen it used in China but I'm not as familiar with Asia because I haven't lived there. I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then you're likely to be wrong about a lot of things.

> I'm sorry, but if your only example is the US then you're likely to be wrong about a lot of things. That is uncalled for.

It's objectively true. The US ignores many widely accepted international standards, and in multiple cases stands alone in doing so. It's not the defacto world view and shouldn't be treated as such.

Re: It may just be a game to you, but it means the world to us

#200

Post by mcguire »

sandworm101 wrote: post #151
jldugger wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the spirit of the rule is to protect things like hopsital ships, medics, etc. Specifically medical organizations that commit to treating _all sides of a conflict_.

And, importantly, those platforms with the symbol are not allowed to be armed, or even armored . A vehicle with that symbol must have absolutely no other use than medical. Even something like bulletproof glass on an ambulance might make it useful as a troop carrier. A non-armored ambulance can only ever be an ambulance.

Interestingly, not necessarily true. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul)

"Rule 25. Medical personnel exclusively assigned to medical duties must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy.

"As explained below, the equipment of medical personnel with small arms to defend themselves or their patients and the use of such arms for this purpose do not lead to loss of protection. Furthermore, in analogous application of the similar rule applying to medical units, it is not to be considered a hostile act if medical personnel are escorted by military personnel or such personnel are present or if the medical personnel are in possession of small arms and ammunition taken from their patients and not yet handed over to the proper service.

"Rule 29. Medical transports assigned exclusively to medical transportation must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy."

Not sure about armor, although the general statement seems to be they would only lose their protected status if they commit specific actions.

Post reply on HN