Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 41


     
     1        whatever, part of the experience.  Of course, there are
     2        headings that refer to McGarbage and McWasteful.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
     5
     6   MR. MORRIS:   So obviously, all the same considerations that
     7        I have stated before, and I will not repeat, about the
     8        context of the fact sheet being one of criticism of the
     9        hamburger industry, US corporations companies in general,
    10        apply to this section, and, secondly, the fact that the
    11        back page contains alternatives again means that there is a
    12        positive message throughout this fact sheet of concern to
    13        improve society which is relevant, for example, for the
    14        malice allegation et cetera.  If we can show how we are not
    15        motivated by malice for any sentence in the fact sheet, I
    16        mean, for every sentence in the fact sheet, if we can
    17        demonstrate to the court that from the evidence that we
    18        have called that each sentence in the fact sheet can be
    19        justified as fact or fair comment, that goes towards
    20        defeating the malice claim, and that also applies,, of
    21        course, to the counterclaim on their press release where
    22        they say, for example, the damaging of the ozone layer is a
    23        statement in the fact sheet which they have characterised
    24        as lies.
    25
    26        So when people received the -- this is a general statement
    27        about the counterclaim -- leaflets that McDonald's issued
    28        on the counterclaim, that are relevant to the counterclaim,
    29        they did not send people the fact sheets, they did not say,
    30        'This is the document we consider it means this', they
    31        just said, 'It means this', and throughout the press
    32        release said it is lies.
    33
    34        Therefore, obviously, some members of the public may know
    35        what is in the fact sheet and therefore McDonald's have to
    36        show the fact sheet is lies, but also that they have to
    37        show what was in their press release saying 'the fact sheet
    38        said...' is lies, because that is the defamation.  They
    39        say, the fact sheet is lies, lies, lies -- nine times or
    40        whatever it is in the press release -- and then they
    41        summarise what the fact sheet states in those eight bullet
    42        points in the press release, and they are basically saying,
    43        this is lies that me and Helen are responsible for, we have
    44        said they damaged the ozone layer, we have said they
    45        produce food which is unhealthy.  And for people reading
    46        that most of them would think that McDonald's has called us
    47        liars for saying those things, even if they have
    48        mistranslated or misinterpreted what the fact sheet
    49        actually does say.
    50
    51        So that, of course, we would pray in aid of the relevance
    52        of the plastic packaging certainly as regards ozone,
    53        because that is a specific statement which they have said
    54        is a lie.  We have demonstrated by evidence in this case
    55        that in fact not only do we genuinely believe it is true,
    56        so it cannot be a lie, but in fact it is true.  McDonald's
    57        own expert conceded that they used a significant amount of
    58        ozone depleting chemicals.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Right.  We will have a break there.  I have

Prev Next Index