Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 48
1 hot dog salesman on the corner at large. The only
difference between them really from a hot dog or hamburger
2 stall is the massive image promotion from day 1 which they
have managed to sustain.
3
So it says something about the corporations which is
4 touched on in the leaflet, but it also says something
about their motive for trying to suppress all their
5 critics, because if they were a corporation that did not
rely on their image, then would they be so loose with the
6 writs they throw around to stop criticisms?
7 It is about militarisation of the workplace, the
regimentation of the workplace, of animals, plantation of
8 forests; it is an attitude which they are promoting. It
is about the abuse of language. Throughout this trial,
9 all parties -- certainly we will (and the court will) --
will have to really think about the language that is being
10 used in the leaflets, in McDonald's documents, in the
pleadings, because what may appear to be one thing may, in
11 fact, be hiding another thing.
12 I know it sounds daft, but after four years of analysing
McDonald's documents, you begin to see certain
13 similarities in the way they manipulate language to appear
to say one thing but, in fact, means something else. That
14 is something that throughout the trial will be a feature
of the trial. What are they hiding? What are they
15 saying? What are they not saying?
16 There is another thing which will be a feature of this
trial which is, is McDonald's trying to clothe itself with
17 a mantel of environmentalist organisations or the green
image? I cannot remember where I have seen it. I think
18 there is a document on this somewhere where that is a
policy of theirs to try to get chummy with certain groups
19 in order to take on that mantel or appear to; for example,
backing the Tidy Britain Group.
20
Here we have an organisation which is probably the biggest
21 single cause of environment/index.html">litter in this country backing the Tidy
Britain Group. I am not saying they should not, but I am
22 saying that again that does not mean they can avoid their
responsibility for the environment/index.html">litter that is produced. That goes
23 for a lot of things. They seem to choose particular
organisations to under cut criticisms. For example,
24 supporting a nature reserve in Costa Rica -- to replant a
rainforest, one may ask? It is not really evidence but
25 why are they doing that?
26 So we are talking in this country, it is a subsidiary of
the US multi-national, most of the directors in this
27 country are from the States. Again that is not an
anti-American point, but it is a recognition of the
28 control mechanism that McDonald's Corporation has, sort
of, internationally when it expands.
29
They have said they are like one big happy family, but we
30 have to ask ourselves through this trial: Is everybody in
McDonald's corporation equal? What are the wages paid at
