Panto Breaks Geneva Convention

[Si Hunt]

A Glasgow theatre has had to change a pantomime costume after being told it was breaking the Geneva Convention.

The dress worn by Nurse Poltis in the Pavilion Theatre production of Robin Hood originally had red crosses on the hat and tunic.

These were changed to green crosses after the British Red Cross informed the theatre it was breaking the law and could face prosecution.

Unauthorised use of the emblem violates the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.

The British Red Cross said it had contacted the Pavilion Theatre over the use of a red cross on a nurse's costume in the pantomime, The Magical Adventures of Robin Hood.

A spokesman for the humanitarian organisation said: "We have no desire to be the villains of the pantomime or to appear heavy handed, but we do have a very serious obligation to protect the Red Cross emblem.

"The emblem is a special sign of neutrality and protection recognised by all sides during armed conflicts.

"Misuse of that emblem - even when done in an innocent and light-hearted manner - has to be addressed. Repeated and widespread misuse of the Red Cross emblem could dilute its neutrality and its ability to protect.

"When we contacted the theatre management, they quickly changed the cross on the nurse's costume to green and we applaud them for that."

Thank God for that eh?

Have they got a point? Or is this just another example of over-reaction?

Si.

[Lissa]

Of course they're over reacting but they've done it for years. First aid boxes can't have a red cross on them any more because of threats of legal action. The symbol itself is vaguely interesting - it's not a Christian cross but a reversal of the Swiss flag. This doesn't stop Muslims and Jews from refusing to wear the red cross because it conflicts with their faiths. Hence the creation of the red crescent and most recently the red crystal for those who are allergic to Christian undertones. There was even a Red Swastika in India in the 1920s which was proposed as a neutral solution to the cross/crescent dispute but fortunately was never adopted internationally.

The panto was using it because it's a recognised symbol of medical care and I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that. The association of red cross = medical help is surely a good one. Those running the Red Cross seem more interesting in keeping it as a symbol of their organisation rather than a symbol of hope or help and that makes them a tiny bit selfish and self important. And the different symbols for different religions is a neat way of identifying who it's ok to kill in god's name during a religious war.

[MinaHarker]

I think it's fair enough, given what an important symbol it is and what it means. It HAS to be kept separate from idle use, because it is a powerfully protective symbol in places of conflict and war.

Found some interesting info here, too.

[Lissa]

But it's basically the same as the English flag and that's not treated with any sort of reverence or protection. Especially during a World Cup.

How is this -



different from this -

[Rob McCow]

It's such a simple symbol, two red lines intersecting, that I can't see how they could stop everyone in the world from using it whenever they like. If a multi-national corporation were using it to promote a brand of soap powder, then that would have widespread enough issues to cause a problem - but if it appears in a panto, then how could that possible hurt anyone?

[Captain Tancredi]

Strange how nobody complained about the Geneva Convention when Widow Twankey got waterboarded.

Of course the interesting thing now would be (given that pantos love nothing more than being able to slip a bit of topical humour in) if another panto chose to make fun of the whole business- you can see how it would snowball.

And I'm fairly sure that a lot of costume hire places and shops that sell Naughty Nurse-type costumes will have the red cross on them- strangely enough I can't really see the Red Cross threatening Ann Summers with prosecution. In fact, tying this in with the Huck Finn thread, perhaps somebody will end up changing the colour of the Redcrosse Knight in Spenser's Faerie Queene.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I remember when Living Daylights came out on DVD it had to have a HUGE disclaimer because they misuse a Red Cross vehicle to abduct someone.

Which is a bit rich coming from an organisation who kept secret during the World War Two what the Nazi's were doing in their concentration death camps. Yeah, that's real humanitarian!

[Andrew Curnow]

Strange how nobody complained about the Geneva Convention when Widow Twankey got waterboarded

I must admit that I find "Panto Breaks Geneva Convention" a far more exciting headline than the actual story itself.

[MinaHarker]

But it's basically the same as the English flag and that's not treated with any sort of reverence or protection. Especially during a World Cup.

How is this -



different from this -

That's a strawman argument because those two symbols you posted look similar but do not mean the same thing, any more than the image in this article and this one.

And yes, I realise I may have fallen into Godwin territory, but I could not think of any examples of other symbols that looks similar but have wildly different meanings,

[Jason Thompson]

But it's basically the same as the English flag and that's not treated with any sort of reverence or protection.

The resemblance ends with a commonality of colour. The Red Cross sign is a specific cross with particular relative dimensions. A cross is a pretty common shape. It is the specific dimensions of crosses that convey their meaning. After all, the symbol of the Christian church isn't 'just a cross', is it?

There was even a Red Swastika in India in the 1920s which was proposed as a neutral solution to the cross/crescent dispute but fortunately was never adopted internationally.

Why fotunately? Had it been so in the 20s Hitler would likely have chosen a different symbol for his party, so there would be no tainting of the emblem by association with a brutal dictatorship. Note also that swastikas have been around long before the Nazis and are still used in their original context.

[Lissa]

The resemblance ends with a commonality of colour. The Red Cross sign is a specific cross with particular relative dimensions. A cross is a pretty common shape. It is the specific dimensions of crosses that convey their meaning. After all, the symbol of the Christian church isn't 'just a cross', is it?

Did the Red Cross check the relative dimensions of the panto costume's cross before deciding it violated their intellectual property? Or did they just see a red cross and try to ban it? There is no difference between the red cross and any other red cross on a white background (except for the Christian cross which is a different shape as you say but that doesn't stop non-Christians refusing to use the Red Cross's cross). I dare say the Red Cross has specific design specs like any other corporate logo but the end result is an inverted Swiss flag which, out of context, looks no different to the flag of St George. People in war zones aren't checking the relative dimensions of a red cross that they see and consulting a list to see which denotes official Red Cross people, which denotes panto dames and which symbolises England fans.

Why fotunately? Had it been so in the 20s Hitler would likely have chosen a different symbol for his party, so there would be no tainting of the emblem by association with a brutal dictatorship. Note also that swastikas have been around long before the Nazis and are still used in their original context.

"Fortunately" because had the Red Cross adopted the swastika as an official symbol in the 20s and early 30s and if Hitler had carried on using it then the Red Cross's reputation would've been permanently damaged. It would still be used against them by opponents (not to mention Israel which already refuses to use the cross symbol and would certainly not ally themselves with a group which used to use the swastika, however innocently). People are very quick to ignore contexts where swastikas are concerned.

That's a strawman argument because those two symbols you posted look similar but do not mean the same thing, any more than the image in this article and this one.

It's a perfectly valid argument because the Red Cross are seeking to "protect" a symbol that is in wide, common and frequently disrespectful use in this country. Worldwide I grant you the red cross is most commonly assocated with the organisation and action like this would be more reasonable but in England it is pointless trying to claim ownership of a red cross on a white background because it just makes them look silly. It doesn't matter that one cross means England and the other means neutrality in a war zone - neither of those things affects a pantomime.

If a worldwide brand like Coke or McDonalds started using a logo that resembled the red cross then the Red Cross would have every right to object. If they claimed ownership of it in a medical context then fair enough. But to claim they own it outright is rediculous.

[Jason Thompson]

There is no difference between the red cross and any other red cross on a white background

Of course there is.

I dare say the Red Cross has specific design specs like any other corporate logo but the end result is an inverted Swiss flag which, out of context, looks no different to the flag of St George.

I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. You can tell at a glance the difference between an England flag and the Red Cross symbol. I could arrange a whole variety of red crosses on white backgrounds and I guarantee most people would be able to pick the Red Cross and the England flag out of the lineup without even thinking about it, you included.

People in war zones aren't checking the relative dimensions of a red cross that they see and consulting a list to see which denotes official Red Cross people, which denotes panto dames and which symbolises England fans.

Which is precisely my point. They don't need to check, they can see at a glance which is which.

"Fortunately" because had the Red Cross adopted the swastika as an official symbol in the 20s and early 30s and if Hitler had carried on using it then the Red Cross's reputation would've been permanently damaged.

That was my point too. Had the Red Swastika been adopted Hitler probably wouldn't have used that symbol for the Nazi party in the first place.

It's a perfectly valid argument because the Red Cross are seeking to "protect" a symbol that is in wide, common and frequently disrespectful use in this country.

You are conflating a specific symbol with any old red cross, and that just isn't valid.

But to claim they own it outright is rediculous.

So is MacDonald's ridiculous for claiming ownership of a logo that is simply a gold M on a red background? Or does the stylised nature of the letter perhaps make it a protectable symbol? Should the Danes be annoyed at the Swiss because their flag is also a white cross on a red background and people might get confused?



The Red Cross is easily distinguished from the England flag. It is a logo. To say it is 'just' a red cross on a white background is absurd.

[Lissa]

It wasn't designed to be a logo - it IS the Swiss flag but reversed red/white to white/red. The only real difference between that and the English flag is that the English flag goes all the way to the edge and the Red Cross is in the middle of the white background with white space on each side. Depending on the usage this difference is either visibile or invisible. How else are they different? Are they different shades of red (like Dyno Rod)? Are the ends of the Red Cross curved or otherwise styled? No - it's a red cross on a white background. McDonalds uses a logo - an image designed to be distinct and unique in shape and colour - because a letter M in a regular font wouldn't be protectable in law.

Surely the continuing use of the Crusader flag in films and TV series should be of more concern to the Red Cross since they are soldiers in a war zone wearing the red cross who are not neutral. Why does the Red Cross not seek to get that banned if they own that symbol in that context?

[Jason Thompson]

The only real difference between that and the English flag is that the English flag goes all the way to the edge and the Red Cross is in the middle of the white background with white space on each side. Depending on the usage this difference is either visibile or invisible.

I'm sorry, but this is simply rubbish.

How else are they different? Are they different shades of red (like Dyno Rod)? Are the ends of the Red Cross curved or otherwise styled? No - it's a red cross on a white background.

But it has different dimensions. The Red Cross is a square cross, which you can clearly see could be made from five squares arranged in a cross shape. The England flag is a much longer, thinner, cross and is not square. Are you seriously claiming you cannot tell the difference?

Surely the continuing use of the Crusader flag in films and TV series should be of more concern to the Red Cross since they are soldiers in a war zone wearing the red cross who are not neutral. Why does the Red Cross not seek to get that banned if they own that symbol in that context?

The Crusader cross looks nothing like the Red Cross. I honestly cannot see how you can justifiably claim that any old red cross is effectively the same as the Red Cross.



Can you honestly not pick out the Red Cross and the England flag from that little selection?

[Lissa]

Not at the moment because Photobucket is blocked at work but I'll have a look later. But do you really think that if this panto dame's costume had a slightly thinner, more English red cross that this wouldn't have happened? Or would the Red Cross have acted exactly the same way because people might've mistaken a generic red cross for the Red Cross? In which case the exact differences between the crosses is irrelevant because the Red Cross are seeking to restrict the use of a cross that is red which might be mistaken for the Red Cross by people who don't know the difference.

Looking at the poster (s)he seems to have both crosses on his/her costume anyway.

[Jason Thompson]

But do you really think that if this panto dame's costume had a slightly thinner, more English red cross that this wouldn't have happened?

No, but that's also the question of context, which is a whole separate argument. Stick a red cross on what is evidently intended as a nurse's outfit and you are clearly intending to represent the red cross symbol even if you get it a bit wrong, and hence they would be expected to respond in the same way, just as MacDonald's would be within their rights to threaten legal action to another fast food chain using a similar logo with a similar gold M on a red background, even if it was not exactly the same as their 'golden arches' one (incidentally, a letter M in a standard font would be protectable by law as a logo because it is the whole of the logo, the shape, the colours and so on, that is protected, not the individual components). The argument 'but it's not exactly the same logo' wouldn't wash then because of the intent behind its use. People who plaster England flags over their faces while watching England play football are clearly not intending their red cross on a white background to represent an organisation known for its neutrality in war zones and proferring medical aid to those who need it.

[Lissa]

People who plaster England flags over their faces while watching England play football are clearly not intending their red cross on a white background to represent an organisation known for its neutrality in war zones and proferring medical aid to those who need it.

And a panto dame is intending her red cross to represent that same organisation? Much of the problem seems to come because the Red Cross has licenced their symbol in the past to makers of first aid kits and medical supplies (with the proceeds from the licence going to fund their work overseas) which has in turn lead to it being commonly thought of as a generic medical / first aid / nursing symbol. They can't have it both ways - either it has a very specific use or it doesn't. Combine its generic nature with its past usage and it is no wonder people don't associate it solely with the organisation and think they can use it as they please.

[Jason Thompson]

Combine its generic nature with its past usage and it is no wonder people don't associate it solely with the organisation and think they can use it as they please.

How they think they can use it and how they can use it are evidently two different things. 'I didn't think that was illegal' was never an acceptable defence in any legal case, was it?

First aid kits and the like haven't had red crosses on for a number of years now. Whatever was done in the past doesn't alter the present situation of the symbol being restricted in its use.

[Alex]

Off topic, I know, but in the future Lissa could you please put a warning before posting a picture of Jim Davidson? Some of us could be eating our dinners whilst reading the forum, you know!

[Captain Tancredi]

This is evidently one of those discussions which isn't going to end in a consensus, but I'm slightly disappointed that nobody in the theatre has made an issue out of a well-funded international concern leaning on a local theatre to get them to change the content of a production. If it were Microsoft rather than the Red Cross and a serious play rather than a panto, there'd be all hell let loose.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Panto Breaks Geneva Convention

Oh no it didn't!

[Jason Thompson]

a well-funded international concern leaning on a local theatre to get them to change the content of a production.

I am more disapointed that much of the media view seems to be the Red Cross as big bullies making sweeping threats rather than the equally likely politely worded note that the theatre may inadvertently be leaving themselves open to legal action by accidental misuse of a symbol, however innocently intended. But then all big organisations are thuggish bullies when it comes to protecting their own rights and interests, aren't they?

[Lissa]

They licence the logo out for money and are protecting the value of that asset in the marketplace. But they don't say that - they make themselves sound absurd by implying that a panto dame will affect their ability to do their jobs in a warzone. That combined with their lacking a sense of both humour and proportion and it's no wonder the British media is attacking them.

[Jason Thompson]

But then all big organisations are out to protect their money first and foremost, aren't they? . Of course they're not going to say that, however true it may be. They're in a lose-lose situation from the media, aren't they? Either they're being absurdly overprotective or they're being greedy, because somehow our typical British cynicism doesn't allow us to appreciate the ideals behind an organisation. However absurd you might think it is, it is just possible that there are those who genuinely believe in that ideal and see it the way it is stated in the article.

Bottom line: they are legally entitled to protect the use of their emblem and have been for over fifty years. That is enshrined in international law, and quite rightly so because they do some bloody good work in some appalling situations. If I was out working for them in a war zone I'd want to know that people recognised the cross for what it is meant to be and not some frivolous emblem plastered willy nilly on panto dames and facy dress nurse's outfits.

Frankly this shouldn't even be news, because they said 'would you mind changing it?' and the panto organisers said 'OK' and did so. Where's the bloody news? Whatever reasons were given by their spokesman were probably whipped out off the cuff because they probably didn't expect to be contacted by news media demanding to know why they are stifling the fun of a panto. It's not like they told them not to run the show, they just asked them to make a minor costume change to one character. The lack of a sense of proportion is attributable far more to the media who made this non-story into news than to the Red Cross.