Int’l Red Cross Says Gamers Violate Human Rights Laws

My most recent post at Hot Air’s Green Room – 600 Million Gamers Are Virtually Violating the Geneva Convention?

The International Committee of the Red Cross can’t muster up the energy to condemn Palestinian violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions against Israel, but is considering ways to “encourage” governments to regulate first-person shooters where players commit virtual war crimes.

Here’s the thing: typically liberals want a kinder, gentler world where all the kids share their crayons and take turns and everything is fair. They often have laudable goals. But – and they know this, because their actions bear it out – human nature guarantees it’s never going to happen this side of heaven. So they work to coerce and force people to play nice.  They are perfectly willing to micromanage every single part of your life in order to achieve their goals.  Kind intentions aside, they are fascists.


  1. The Khmer Rouge have nothing on me! Looks like I’m a war criminal a few hundred thousands times over! And I’m just one man!

    (On a more serious note, the West is suicidally unserious and, in the end, things like this as much as anything else, will be our end.)

  2. …They’re trying to beat PETA for dumb moves, right?
    Foxfier recently posted..Long Quote from Derb

  3. It’s an important moral question, I guess, though to be fair it’s unlikely that gamers are going to be actually going off and committing actual war crimes. A pretty silly move.

    On the other hand though, I would personally consider regulating media content is a perfectly viable social-conservative position, though not very ‘conservative’ in the States I guess, where ‘freedom of the press’ is a constitutionally-protected right and has been for centuries. (Over here in Britain, age restrictions on movies carry legal force, and some material can be banned). I regard it as somewhat different to the actual free expression of ideas- games are entertainment before they are there to make a serious point. If they start restricting genuine free speech, *that’s* definitely fascism.

    Whether such restrictions are quite right, of ourse, is another matter. Getting close to thought-crime I suppose.

  4. What on earth do moral questions of any sort have to do with being an independent, neutral organization ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of war and armed violence, or different countries’ views on legally enforced limits on content?

    This tells me that now I’ll have to check before giving money to the red cross to find out if local donations get funneled up to be wasted like this.

  5. I just got started gaming again – it’s been at least ten years since I played any RPG – last night. Opened an account at and killed a dozen dwarves. I loved every minute of it. :-)

  6. Well when you frame yourself as an organisation with such an ethos, very true.

    I dare say they do still do *some* good work in spite of this, however.

  7. But is it the international group, or the local ones? I KNOW the local groups do good work–and I know there are a bunch of other groups I could donate to that skip the BS and get down to brass tacks.
    Foxfier recently posted..Long Quote from Derb

  8. It’s the international group doing this – no idea how much, if any, local money gets to these jackwagons.