The Minister will be delighted to know that this will be my final intervention, but clause 2 deals with the optional protocol that extends the convention's authority to deal with humanitarian aid. However, as the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) suggested, it brings us back to the issue of protection, and to signs and symbols. Will the Minister buttonhole this once and for all? Surely a sign has a strictly limited meaning but a symbol, as Jung argued, is far more subtle. When we use a symbol, we imply or suggest all that lies behind it. Does the Minister agree that, when it comes to protection, that is critical? He is well qualified to answer that, as he is Jung at heart.
Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
John Hayes
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [Lords].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
493 c848 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:55:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565273
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565273
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_565273