Day 311 - 06 Dec 96 - Page 52
1 a time when three out of the five defendants had settled;
2 so, the two remaining defendants were Ms. Steel and
3 Mr. Morris.
4
5 This is the McLibel support campaign. Its date, if one
6 looks at the bottom of the page, to be February 1991. One
7 knows in any case from the internal evidence of the
8 document that the only two remaining Defendants were these
9 two. Can I ask your Lordship to read to yourself the first
10 two paragraphs, in particular the paragraph headed
11 "intimidation"? (Pause).
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
14
15 MR. RAMPTON: Then it gets worse and worse as one goes on.
16 McDesperate gets McNasty, which leads over the page, and
17 some little bits that I have mentioned this morning about
18 the McDestroyers, and then McWasteful are lying about their
19 use of recycled paper. Six points, that McCancer mislead
20 the public about the nutritional content of their food,
21 about the chemicals contained in it and about the health
22 risks associated with the diet. One point about
23 McBrainwashing, using advertisements to entice children
24 into their restaurant. One point about McDeadly's torture
25 of animals, and finally three points about McSlavedrivers,
26 exploitation of workers, and so on and so forth.
27
28 Then it says in the next paragraph "let us make them pay.
29 Let us make McLiars prove their claims and answer for their
30 crimes. McDirty know they are guilty and not the caring
31 green company they try to make out, so they have turned to
32 the legal system to suppress free speech and fair
33 criticism. Here they do not have to prove anything, it is
34 just those being sued who have to prove everything, and not
35 just with quotes and sources but with witnesses and
36 experts", and then down to the last paragraph, "Fight
37 back. McWrits may win in court, they are there to protect
38 the interests of the rich and powerful but we can win on
39 the streets. What McDonald's fear most is bad publicity
40 and loss of custom. The fight against their evil empire
41 must continue. The campaign needs your support".
42
43 Now, that is a response to the complaint by the
44 Defendants. That was published in February of 1991. If
45 one looks into the mind of whoever it was on behalf of
46 McDonald's who wrote the responsive documents in March and
47 April and May of 1994 and asked the question: was it
48 reasonable for that person to suppose that the Defendants'
49 response to the complaint was not only unreasonable but
50 defamatory, one comes up, I would suggest, with two
51 answers: a reasonable person would say that such a response
52 was entirely justified, in other words that the sting of
53 that allegation in the counterclaim documents is true, but
54 that it cannot conceivably be suggested, even if it is not
55 true, that such a person was dishonest.
56
57 MS. STEEL: Can I just say, just as a matter of context,
58 looking at the page before those, where Mr. Rampton read
59 out all the points about McDestroyers and so on, just that
60 the bottom line on the page before does say, given the
