American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Calls for Red Cross Symbol to Be Axed Over Links to the Crusades

More news stories on Britain

Michael Lea, Daily Mail (London), June 10, 2009

A Labour minister has sparked controversy by claiming that an alternative symbol is needed for the Red Cross because of the logo’s supposed links to the Crusades.

Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant said that the historic emblem risked undermining the work of the humanitarian organisation.

His intervention came as MPs debated the adoption of the ‘red crystal’—a diamond-shaped badge—to avoid the religious connotations of the cross and crescent symbols currently used by the international body.

But critics said the new insignia was a sop to political correctness and warned that it may be the first step towards it replacing cross and crescent. Others fear that it may not be as widely recognised on the battlefield.

‘It is, in an effort not to be contentious, possibly too anodyne to serve its purpose,’ Tory MP John Hayes said.

Philip Davies, a Tory backbencher, said: ‘At face value to the layman it seems at best a solution looking for a problem and at worst another example of extreme political correctness.

‘No one has ever suggested to me that the Red Cross refers to the Crusades.’

Shadow Foreign Office minister David Lidington said that use of the crystal over the cross by the British military should ‘be the exception rather than be allowed to become the norm’.

Tory Oliver Heald said the Red Cross symbol was widely recognised and counselled caution that ‘we are careful not to undermine that’.

‘There is also a risk of confusion with many different symbols, and that terrorists may exploit that to mask themselves when carrying out attacks,’ he added.

The founding Conference of the Red Cross Movement in 1863 adopted a red cross on a white background—the reverse of the Swiss flag—as the emblem of the voluntary medical personnel who assisted the wounded on the battlefield.

It was never intended to have any religious meaning and is thought to have been intended as a tribute to traditionally neutral Switzerland, which hosted the conference.

However, the symbol unintentionally raised suggestions that it was somehow linked to the Hospitallers, a military order which took part in the Crusades, the centuries long series of military campaigns waged by Christians from Europe.

Subsequently, a red crescent emblem was adopted in tandem.

Mr Bryant told the Commons: ‘The reference to the Crusades is . . . not lost to some people which, of course, anybody involved in the Red Cross would wholly deprecate.

‘The truth of the matter is that it has been difficult in some places for us to ensure that these connotations of a religious war or a religious crusade don’t undermine the work that the Red Cross or Red Crescent is able to do.’

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hope that the neutrality of the red crystal will help improve protection for casualties, military medical services and humanitarian workers.

It was chosen because it is devoid of religious and other partisan connotations.

A treaty which established the red crystal as an additional protective symbol became part of international law in 2006.

It will now receive the same status in UK law as the red cross and red crescent under the Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill passed today.

The impartial movement is the world’s largest humanitarian network made up of almost 97million volunteers, supporters, and staff in 186 countries.

Leigh Daynes, spokesman for the British Red Cross, said: ‘The British Red Cross strongly supports acceptance of the Red Crystal emblem.

It would give another option for the protection of humanitarian workers, as well as for the medical services of the armed forces, in situations where use of the Red Cross or Red Crescent emblems might be misunderstood.

‘In these circumstances, the Red Crystal would make our workers and the medical services of the armed forces safer. The British Red Cross will continue to use the Red Cross emblem, which, after more than a century, has served us well.’

red-cross
Hate symbol?

Original article

(Posted on June 11, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — SKIP wrote at 6:20 PM on June 11:

‘There is also a risk of confusion with many different symbols, “and that terrorists may exploit that to mask themselves when carrying out attacks,’ he added.”

This person has never seen a suicide bombing or IED.

“It would give another option for the protection of humanitarian workers”

The Red Cross symbol isn’t allowed in Arabic muslim countries and it don’t make a bit of difference in Africa.

”: ‘The British Red Cross strongly supports acceptance of the Red Crystal emblem.

And just how many words for ‘surrender’ do the British have?

2 — Zorba_the_Geek wrote at 6:52 PM on June 11:

My, my: everything the Crusaders ever even hoped to accomplish has been reversed and repudiated, and the conquest of Christian Europe by Islam goes on apace, with a prostrate European elite offering no resistance, but folks there still want to lose their lunch over the Crusades and its “symbols”…

Well, then, why not ban crosses on churches as well? Ban ‘em inside the churches as well, as you never know when some poor sensitive unsuspecting Muslim might go in a church for a free meal or clothing and be mortally offended at seeing that Crusaders’ symbol there….

3 — 4im wrote at 8:57 PM on June 11:

Nobody has suggested the red star? red hammer? red sickle?
A red diamond seems like a blood diamond referance. May i sugest just a white flag like all other western institutions seem to be using. OH i forgot a white flag would be racist.

4 — Schoolteacher wrote at 9:51 PM on June 11:

Do these 3rd World people contribute anything to the Red Cross, or do they merely take advantage of its services? Don’t like the cross? Then you don’t need the blood.

5 — Memphomaniac wrote at 10:17 PM on June 11:

Execuse me…..

There may be value in having a single, universal symbol but there should be no unilateral effort to abandon the red cross. Such a universal symbol should only be adopted by abandoning the red cross AND the red crescent at the same time. I did not notice any such reciprocity in the article.

6 — Anonymous wrote at 10:34 PM on June 11:

The Red Cross has been around for 146 years, through two World Wars and countless other regional conflicts, but someone out there might be “confused” as to its meaning.

What a load of horse dung. They are not confused when they are looking for Care Packages, food, water, coffee, blankets, etc., are they?

I noticed that the International Agency Conference agreed on the use of a Red Crystal.

Well, that’s really interesting, since all the New Age freaks swear by the power of the Crystal. It just seems to me that they are trying to replace two established World Religious symbols, for one entirely new.

I am a member of the Red Cross. If I am handed a jacket, or hat with Red Crystal patches on them, I will refuse the uniform, and quit the Organization. They can take into account how they offended me, when I leave.

7 — SKIP wrote at 11:18 PM on June 11:

Along with a previous AR article about the offensiveness of the cross and then THIS! I still forsee Germany, Portugal, DR, Denmark and quite a number of other countries having to change their national flag/insignias. Mustn’t outrage the muslims ya know.

8 — SKIP wrote at 12:21 AM on June 12:

I watched some Iraq war F-16 guncamera footage and it showed a truck with the Arab muslim red crescent (medical) being shot up by the F-16. U.S. pilots apparently did not know the signifigance of the markings, I wouldn’t care.

9 — Anders wrote at 1:09 AM on June 12:

Oh dear, with everything going on in England…hasn’t this dill got something more than this (non) issue to be bothered about?
I’d say a large proportion of his constituents are Muslims…

“It was never intended to have any religious meaning and is thought to have been intended as a tribute to traditionally neutral Switzerland, which hosted the conference.”

“Subsequently, a red crescent emblem was adopted in tandem.”

Therefore, according to this mal-content’s logic, the crescent should be changed back to the cross eh? A red crystal? That sounds like something out of a kids’ cartoon!
Not only that, imagine the Worldwide expensive nuisance of changing EVERY single Red Cross logo in use to a crystal - only in ‘Western’ countries of course, he doesn’t think Muslim countries are going to relinquish the cresent for the crystal does he?

“My, my: everything the Crusaders ever even hoped to accomplish has been reversed and repudiated, and the conquest of Christian Europe by Islam goes on apace, with a prostrate European elite offering no resistance, but folks there still want to lose their lunch over the Crusades and its “symbols”…”

You know Zorba, I doubt most ‘young-ish Westerners’ know what The Crusades were, when they happened or what it was about. If they know one thing about them, I’d say it would be, “The Crusades were racist.” I recall that I came across a childrens’ book in the local library entitled ‘Racism’and on page two of the book was a picture of a Crusader. No one ever hears a mention of Muslim empires waging war against Christianity though, but as we know, they don’t have to bother to wage war anymore.


10 — WR the elder wrote at 2:36 AM on June 12:

Islam was spread through conquest. Egypt and Syria were once predominately Christian. So was Turkey. Muslims invaded other countries and forced conversion to Islam.

So to all Muslims who whine about the long past Crusades, cry me a river. If the red cross is a symbol of oppression, then surely the star and crescent is as well.

11 — BeenHereTooLong wrote at 2:41 AM on June 12:

It’s a damned shame the Crusaders didn’t annihilate Islam and its adherents and be done with it centuries ago. It’s easy to see where the world is now because they still exist. So, if they are offended by the Cross, it’s clear that I am offended by their excuse for a religion and their goings-on. Why must we give in to them? Is there no real will to fight back? Is there no fight left in us?

“And they shall beat their ploughshares into swords and their pruning hooks into spears.”

12 — Anonymous wrote at 5:39 AM on June 12:

The more these idiots give in to the hate-filled jihadis, the bolder they become and demand more.

13 — Yorkshireman wrote at 7:41 AM on June 12:

Typical labour policy putting this Chris Bryant in such a position as a Foreign Office Minister which demands just a touch of diplomacy, an attribute that most of the Government does not possess. He obviously has no idea just how many countries and organisations use this red cross (or similar) on their flags. What’s he going to do, send one our Euro owned British gun-boats around the world and rip them all down? Lots are land-locked anyway! He doesn’t even have the gumption to suggest the use of the NATO signal flag for the number 4. He probably doesn’t know what NATO is. If this is all he has to do, he should be fired or put in charge of immigration, a post he will screw up so effectively that we will see and end to it all before Christmas. Alright, so he is offended by the word ‘Christmas’, how about festive season…. hah!! And I could tell him what to do with the holly. I object to the sword on the Saudi flag, it reminds me of the crusades and therefore I am offended.

14 — Anonymous wrote at 8:25 AM on June 12:

The cross is a very offensive symbol to some. It must be eliminated so that people can feel good about themselves.

http://www.dawnbible.com/2000/0009-hl.htm

15 — Fight the Racists wrote at 11:49 AM on June 12:

Next step…Christianity is offensive to Muslims so it must be eliminated. Ministers are offensive to Muslims so they must be eliminated. White people, who they call Christians, are offensive to Muslims so they too must be eliminated. And the nitwit liberals go right along with the program. Note how they never question the idea that not offending Muslims is an important issue. Let’s continue to offend them by not changing for their benefit. R.K.S.

16 — Tom S wrote at 12:00 PM on June 12:

I’ve got an idea, wherever the red cross is “misunderstood”, then the red cross shouldn’t go there.

17 — Anonymous wrote at 7:14 PM on June 12:

During the Sino-Japanese conflict in the 1930s, the Chinese ‘Red Swastika’ movement carried out Red Cross functions, wearing the red Swastika as their symbol on clothing and flags.

The Red Swastika movement co-existed alongside the Chinese Red Cross, which has been recognized since 1912 by the International Red Cross Committee in Geneva.

18 — SKIP wrote at 12:58 AM on June 13:

So to all Muslims who whine about the long past Crusades, cry me a river. If the red cross is a symbol of oppression, then surely the star and crescent is as well.

I could be wrong here (it has happened before) but I believe the Crusades were mounted to drive the INVADING muslims out of Christian Europe. Muslims have been invading Europe through the balkans for a long time and NOW they have the Islamic Republic of Kosovo(stan) thanks to U.S. and that evil U.N.

19 — Aware wrote at 2:03 PM on June 15:

Political opportunism and a bad one at that, no surprise it comes from Britain.

I hope the Red Cross symbol stays and the only one to be used. As for the Crusades, it’s the great unified undertaking Christianity made as a people and religion. If there’s a moment in history where it’s legacy should be admired, remembered, and put to use, it’s now.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search