Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 07


     
     1        an alternative point of view and to be able to judge for
     2        themselves not only about the McDonald's corporation in
     3        general, but also about what has happened in this case, a
     4        very important case that is now three times longer than any
     5        previous libel trial in this country.
     6
     7        It could be argued that because children have no rights to
     8        protect themselves from McDonald's advertising targeting
     9        them, because, as we have learned in this case, workers at
    10        McDonald's have no rights to defend themselves against
    11        management's control over them, because animals have no
    12        rights in the way they are abused for the food industry and
    13        there is precious little protection for the environment and
    14        all the other matters we have heard of in this case, that
    15        the distribution of information about McDonald's by those
    16        who hold an alternative point of view, an opposing point of
    17        view, is privileged self-defence against McDonald's
    18        relentless and intrusive corporate propaganda and business
    19        practices.
    20
    21        And, as we have heard from McDonald's, they take their
    22        advertising and their influence very seriously, with quotes
    23        like 'dominate the communications area', 'children are
    24        virgin territory as far as marketing is concerned', and 'we
    25        are competing for a share of the customers' mind'.  Just
    26        some quotes which I find personally quite sinister, but no
    27        doubt it is fairly standard in the advertising industry.
    28        But certainly it seems to be something which McDonald's are
    29        quite proud of.
    30
    31        We believe that libel laws in this country are unfair and
    32        should we lose we certainly aim to take matters further to
    33        appeal and to the European Court of Human Rights, but the
    34        European Court of Human Rights and Convention, European
    35        Convention of Human Rights, has, I believe, persuasive
    36        force in this court.  Article 6 says that a fair trial is
    37        essential, that there must be an equality of arms, both
    38        sides must have adequate facilities, I think that is the
    39        words they use, and although when we went to the European
    40        court before over the refusal of the British government to
    41        allow legal aid for libel that certainly, as this case has
    42        now become, it is obvious that legal aid is essential for
    43        enabling a free trial and a trial can be declared unfair
    44        and we believe, if we lose, in fact even if we win, we may
    45        still go to the European Court of Human Rights to try to
    46        ensure that this situation does not occur again, because
    47        even if we win, I cannot imagine anybody, any member of
    48        public in this country, wanting to go through what we have
    49        been through in order to defend their rights to hold
    50        reasonably genuinely held beliefs. 
    51 
    52        Article 10, freedom of expression, is in fact the test for 
    53        libel.  We believe that article 10 says that the test is
    54        reasonable belief, that this should be the test and we
    55        submit -- and we will make more detailed submission when we
    56        have completed it -- that the burden of proof on an
    57        unrepresented and non-legally aided defendant against such
    58        an organisation as a multi-national corporation is clearly
    59        unfair and that the test should be reasonable belief.
    60

Prev Next Index