Thai Army's use of Red Cross sign questioned

[8OA8]

Seeing mention of the Geneva Convention, worthy of note is that Thailand had already become a signatory to this before either the US or UK signed.

[arjunadawn]

What's the point? Are military persons colocated with these bunker logos? Is a medic or medical equipment present? Will care be available to other soldiers or populace, if needed?

Red Cross does not own that image. Military units throughout the world have such logos as the "red cross." There are Geneva convention restrictions on inappropriate display and use but this is not to protect the Red Cross organization, rather to level the fair playing field of war (I know; absurd).

If the Red Cross attempted to send cease and desist regarding this issue established practice and law is not likely on their side. I've seen these soldiers in bunkers and I've not seen arms. You cannot copyright an iconic image that has existed since antiquity, irrespective of a modern organizational claim. This is such contrived nonsense.

I think you're missing the point. It's not a question of who owns the image or copyright it's about the misuse of an internationally accepted symbol.

I suppose we should be grateful there are no hooks on the corners.

I did miss the point; you are correct and good eye. I caught it shortly after, but elected not to muddy the waters with my new eiphiany. I see other's point now.

On another note, I believe Thailand, in any event, is not signatory to the additional protocols that another poster cites. Thailand has signed two primary Conventions, one as Siam nearly 150 years ago, and the 2nd geneva convention later. So, jailhouse international lawyering s aside, the point is it is a misuse of the red cross regardless- I see it now. I agree. The population is inculcated to be suspicious of the red cross from such arbitrary use. Got it!

[transam]

It means "please do not shoot at us"....................

[Basil B]

The "Red Cross" symbol I have always associated as a humanitarian symbol of help, hijacked by an organisation that in my opinion is not always politically neutral.

I am all with the us of the Red Cross symbol if:

• Anyone can receive emergency "first aid" if needed.
• Any unarmed persons can seek shelter in the event of conflict.

As at present Thailand is not at war maybe better to use the white cross on a green background symbol.

[Thai at Heart]

The Red Cross sign is recognised internationally usually to indicate medical services / an aid station etc. and it's misuse is disgraceful but TIT and who gives a hoot.

Do the Thais realise that tourists / international news crews etc seeing all these " Red Cross ' stations could be forgiven for reporting that Bangkok was bracing itself for extreme and widespread violence ?

Or disease....

Why so many mobile health units.

[ppmacready]

What's the point? Are military persons colocated with these bunker logos? Is a medic or medical equipment present? Will care be available to other soldiers or populace, if needed?

Red Cross does not own that image. Military units throughout the world have such logos as the "red cross." There are Geneva convention restrictions on inappropriate display and use but this is not to protect the Red Cross organization, rather to level the fair playing field of war (I know; absurd).

If the Red Cross attempted to send cease and desist regarding this issue established practice and law is not likely on their side. I've seen these soldiers in bunkers and I've not seen arms. You cannot copyright an iconic image that has existed since antiquity, irrespective of a modern organizational claim. This is such contrived nonsense.

The point is a mile away from your mindset!

Your gonna fit in perfectly in Thailand.

[rubl]

Army medics are available at these "bunkers" who will treat anyone in need.

A justification for using an internationally recognised symbol indicating the availability of first aid.

AH! 170 bunkers with medics????? The thia army does not have that many drs and medics.And they dont carry guns.

The bunkers I've seen blend in nicely especially the one in the scrubbery outside the Dusit Thani hotel. I've not stepped inside, but soldiers walking around with red-cross marking didn't seem to carry weapons.

Note that in the army I learned a bit about 'selfhelp - camerade help' and in times of disaster that helps. The soldiers posted might have had similar sessions

[webfact]

Thai Red Cross tells Army not to use Red Cross sign on makeshift bunker



BANGKOK: -- The Thai Red Cross Society has asked the Royal Thai Army not to place Red Cross sign on army bunkers and tents where combined medical and armed soldiers are deployed. reasoning that it breaches the internal Red Cross regulations.

The request to the Army was made by Thai Red Cross Society secretary-general Phan Wannamethee.

In a letter released by the Thai Red Cross Society, Mr Phan said the Army has manned medical and armed soldiers at various makeshift bunkers and tents in the capital with Red Cross sign on them.

Some of these tents also have a message which reads To protect and take care of the people at places close to the protest sites.

He said that the Red Cross symbol on a white background is a visible sign of protection under the Geneva Convention which Thailand had jointly signed, and the Red Cross Act 1956 has allowed the Army to use the Red Cross symbol for its medical service units.

The use of Red Cross sign on tents where soldiers with Red Cross armbands and combat soldiers are mixed to provide assistance is therefore inappropriate, he said.

He then asked the Army to separate these soldiers from the same tents, or to remove the sign if the Army is to deploy them together in the same tents.

A Thai Red Cross Society official Dr Phichit Siriwan said that in international practice, medical soldiers can use Red Cross armbands without seeking prior permission but with condition that they are not armed.

But in case of war, they could allow to carry only small arms for self defense but not heavy weapon to protect places.

He said what it appeared today was the use of Red Cross symbol wrongly and against the original intention such as at tents in Lumpini park.

He said the Thai Red Cross Society has sent several notifications to relevant officials for consideration and correction but was not yet fully responded.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/thai-red-cross-tells-army-use-red-cross-sign-makeshift-bunker/


-- Thai PBS 2014-03-24

[arjunadawn]

THAILAND IS NOT AT WAR

Thai Red Cross Society secretary-general Phan Wannamethee is creating a questionable authority from faulty reasoning. His reasoning is both confused and equivocal. While a previous Poster has convinced me the use of the red cross so indiscriminately is poor management for the population's confidence that the red cross means the RED CROSS. However, military units throughout the world (and law enforcement) routinely use the red cross emblem when participating in civilian events, hosting outreach in various communities, participating in relief operations, and other- and no official Red Cross association exists!

Thailand is NOT AT WAR! I may be excused for not picking up on the underlying issue posters here assert- that the routine use of the red cross when not really medical, is inappropriate, but the Red Cross Sec Gen has flatly stated he is either uninformed of his mandate or dishonest. The Convention articles and protocols (which (secondary protocols), I believe, Thailand has not signed) are applicable only with respect to warfare. Use of the red cross is therefore poor form, but a legal choice.

"A Thai Red Cross Society official Dr Phichit Siriwan said that in international practice, medical soldiers can use Red Cross armbands without seeking prior permission but with condition that they are not armed.

But in case of war, they could allow to carry only small arms for self defense but not heavy weapon to protect places." http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/thai-red-cross-tells-army-use-red-cross-sign-makeshift-bunker/

The above quote is pure nonsense. There is no arbitrary war/peacetime armed instructions for medic. Simply bearers of the red cross may be armed for self defense[ive] (weapons). A lot of rubbish vomiting from the Red Cross today. This is a new scandal if you ask me; how can such an organization simply emit drivel? This guy is just making this Cr-p up.

Edited March 24, 2014 by arjunadawn

[khwaibah]

How can Thailand shot itself in the nards again.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/652285-hitler-fried-chicken-kfc-may-sue-restaurant-in-thailand/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042097/Student-Nazi-dress-day-causes-outrage-Thailand.html

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/713220-thailand-to-protest-fox-news-over-flight-mh370-criticism/

[xminator]

Maybe they can use that other symbol instead, black on red is nearly as good as red on white...

[tomyummer]

Everything in Thailand is open to piracy and copyright laws have no meaning, unless of course you a copying a thai product but I don't think they have ever invented or made anything original.

Ouch. That had to hurt. Talking of which, how about Tiger Balm? Or is that Chinese?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Tiger Balm is Singaporean. Awesome brand and product.

Edited March 24, 2014 by tomyummer

[tomyummer]

It different, our cross is upside down.

They should turn it 45 degrees.

[Lupatria]

Everything in Thailand is open to piracy and copyright laws have no meaning, unless of course you a copying a thai product but I don't think they have ever invented or made anything original.

Ouch. That had to hurt. Talking of which, how about Tiger Balm? Or is that Chinese?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It was developed during the 1870s in Rangoon, Burma, by herbalist Aw Chu Kin

Other common false claims of being "Thai origins" = Red Bull, tuk tuks and even somtam etc.etc.etc.

[Lupatria]

How can Thailand shot itself in the nards again.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/652285-hitler-fried-chicken-kfc-may-sue-restaurant-in-thailand/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042097/Student-Nazi-dress-day-causes-outrage-Thailand.html

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/713220-thailand-to-protest-fox-news-over-flight-mh370-criticism/

You will probably be the next to receive an official letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs detailing Thailand's displeasure at your remarks.

[fab4]

I've been in areas of conflict and civil strife many times in my career.

Many places where there were international "peace keepers" stationed with the military of that country as well as with rebels in that country.

In all of them, the Red Cross symbol is an internationally recognized symbol of "first aid" and medical help for anyone who happens to be injured .... either accidently or otherwise in any conflict.

That's what that big Red Cross means .... it says medical aid is available here.

That's why in places of conflicts that Red Cross appears on ambulances and helicopters .... regardless of which "side" of the conflict the symbol appears on.

That Red Cross means, we are medics, we treat all and everyone who comes here in need of medical attention.

Don't shoot at us.

"That Red Cross means, we are medics, we treat all and everyone who comes here in need of medical attention.

Don't shoot at us."

I don't think the Thai army got that memo in 2010.

[Lupatria]

Protective signs are symbols to be used during an armed conflict to mark persons and objects under the protection of various treaties of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). While their essential meaning can be summarized as "Don't shoot!" or "Don't attack!", the exact conditions implied vary depending on the respective sign and the circumstances of its use.

"We don't give a flying ..... for international law. But if you call us 'jerks' we may sue you!"

[fab4]

In the UK, the police are ambivalent with regard to the role of the "medic"

[wirat69]

What's the point? Are military persons colocated with these bunker logos? Is a medic or medical equipment present? Will care be available to other soldiers or populace, if needed?

Red Cross does not own that image. Military units throughout the world have such logos as the "red cross." There are Geneva convention restrictions on inappropriate display and use but this is not to protect the Red Cross organization, rather to level the fair playing field of war (I know; absurd).

If the Red Cross attempted to send cease and desist regarding this issue established practice and law is not likely on their side. I've seen these soldiers in bunkers and I've not seen arms. You cannot copyright an iconic image that has existed since antiquity, irrespective of a modern organizational claim. This is such contrived nonsense.

Even if your rant were true, the Red Cross Emblem of 5 red squares on a plain white background is reserved for use in times of war and conflict (as opposed to domestic insurrection) by the International Committee of Red Cross in Geneva. Current regular usage by The Thai Red Cross, The Royal Thai Army, private Thai hospitals, local First Aid suppliers and Drug Stores, Kao San t-shirt makers etc are ALL an incorrect usage of the Emblem

[fab4]

Perhaps the soldiers are collecting blood donations to prepare for the blood bath planned by Ko Tee, Jatuporn, Suphon, Kwanchai and other red shits.

A perfect example that highlights the fact that PDRC supporters on here typically display a "bunker" mentality.

[arjunadawn]

What's the point? Are military persons colocated with these bunker logos? Is a medic or medical equipment present? Will care be available to other soldiers or populace, if needed?

Red Cross does not own that image. Military units throughout the world have such logos as the "red cross." There are Geneva convention restrictions on inappropriate display and use but this is not to protect the Red Cross organization, rather to level the fair playing field of war (I know; absurd).

If the Red Cross attempted to send cease and desist regarding this issue established practice and law is not likely on their side. I've seen these soldiers in bunkers and I've not seen arms. You cannot copyright an iconic image that has existed since antiquity, irrespective of a modern organizational claim. This is such contrived nonsense.

"Even if your rant were true, the Red Cross Emblem of 5 red squares on a plain white background is reserved for use in times of war and conflict (as opposed to domestic insurrection) by the International Committee of Red Cross in Geneva. Current regular usage by The Thai Red Cross, The Royal Thai Army, private Thai hospitals, local First Aid suppliers and Drug Stores, Kao San t-shirt makers etc are ALL an incorrect usage of the Emblem"

A rant necessarily requires an emotional particle- I have none in my comments, ever; nor have I capitalized my text for exclamation (read emotion). I see no value in making my assertion your ad hominen attack in order to position your point of view as "making the worse argument seem the better." You are clearly out of your intellectual league- stick to the commentary of the thread and please don't insult posters, it derails the thread and presents you as rude. Let's enjoy the thread; we are all obviously curious about our observations.

Moreover, Thailand has no international obligation to pass national laws to govern the use of the Red Cross beyond the Geneva Conventions 1-4. Thailand surely signed the first, signed the last, but has not ratified the various Protocols wherein the Emblem is further discussed. Thailand is not in noncompliance. Treaties are not binding if not ratified by the State! This includes Protocols. You cannot enact later protocols that are retrospectively binding on earlier signatories. These various Protocols come all the way up to 1977. Thailand is not part of this mechanism. You may wish they would abide by its contents but this is not law.

An intellectual property argument outside of a treaty consideration would certainly be vague in a court of law as the "red cross" symbol has variously been a religious symbol, a product of antiquity, and in common use and practice as an emblem of anything medical, medical product, clinical practice, commercial and more- throughout the world.

Edited March 25, 2014 by arjunadawn