Day 288 - 28 Oct 96 - Page 15


     
     1        from the killing line'.
     2
     3        It is clear from what he says on day 1 that the Plaintiffs
     4        recognise that they are forced to accept that people are
     5        entitled to express their opinions and that they are
     6        confining their case solely to the factual allegations that
     7        are set out in the fact sheet.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    10
    11   MS. STEEL:   And that whilst Mr. Rampton, as you have pointed
    12        out, does not specifically state that they are not
    13        objecting to the word 'torture', nor does he say anywhere
    14        on day one that they are objecting to the word 'torture',
    15        the clear implication of the paragraphs that I have just
    16        read out from Mr. Rampton's opening is that it is only the
    17        expressions of fact, or the assertions of fact, that
    18        McDonald's are objecting to.
    19
    20   MR JUSTICE BELL:  Where does that take you in this case?   I
    21        mean, suppose that the statements of fact have really
    22        amounted to this:  that McDonald's were responsible for
    23        slaughter methods which involved animals often struggling
    24        to escape and become frantic; McDonald's were responsible
    25        for methods of slaughter which involved inefficient
    26        stunning methods frequently resulting in animals having
    27        their throats cut while still conscious; and McDonald's
    28        were responsible for methods of rearing which involved
    29        chickens and pigs, or some of them, spending their lives in
    30        entirely artificial conditions, et cetera.
    31
    32        If that is accepted as the meaning and I bring in humanity,
    33        if need be, and I decide that is defamatory, and if you
    34        were not able to justify that -- I say 'if', because I am
    35        not suggesting what the conclusion will be one way or the
    36        other -- that would be that.  On the other hand, if you say
    37        there is more to it than that, there is an overall sting of
    38        general charge in your own words, animals are suffering and
    39        McDonald's are responsible for it -- and you are entitled
    40        to bring in all the other stuff that you want to rely on in
    41        relation to that -- and you do justify that general
    42        statement I suppose, but you do not justify the three
    43        specific stings or all of them, then we would have to see
    44        where that went.  It might result in McDonald's having a
    45        finding that part of this section of the leaflet is
    46        defamatory but query whether they should get any damages
    47        for it.  If the overall sting is justified, where would the
    48        point you are on now take you, what would be the end
    49        result?
    50 
    51   MS. STEEL:   The point I am on is that I was asked to deal with 
    52        the Plaintiffs' meaning and what we thought of it.  That is 
    53        what I am dealing with.
    54
    55   MR JUSTICE BELL:  You still want the general sting, do you not?
    56
    57   MS. STEEL:   There is a general sting, yes, which is that they
    58        are responsible for the suffering of the animals reared to
    59        produce their product.
    60

Prev Next Index