Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 06


     
     1        business practices.  It is only, in our view, because they
     2        could not bring such a case in the USA and they felt the
     3        laws would be favourable to them.
     4
     5        On the eve of the trial, McDonald's issued 300,000 - I am
     6        not going to go into the appendix yet, leaflets and press
     7        releases attacking their critics, in particular London
     8        Greenpeace and the defendants for distributing lies.
     9
    10        If I can just say something about London Greenpeace.  The
    11        original Greenpeace group in Europe formed in 1971.  They
    12        have been distributing educational material on a wide range
    13        of relevant issues to do with the environment and social
    14        matters, and campaigns, and because of the widespread
    15        nature of the fact sheet and the denunciation of that as
    16        lies -- and I am going to demonstrate a bit later on today
    17        that all the matters in the fact sheet were in the public
    18        domain and emanate from others, not from London Greenpeace,
    19        who only brought together and sympathised with what was
    20        already in existence in the public domain from a wide range
    21        of campaigning and educational organisations and experts.
    22        But by denouncing that as lies they were basically
    23        declaring war on their critics, and if they were to get a
    24        judgment McDonald's would hope that an atmosphere of
    25        intimidation over dissent and criticism of their
    26        corporation would then exist in this country, and a message
    27        would be sent worldwide.  That is one of the reasons we
    28        fought so hard throughout this case, and we are going to
    29        continue to fight for our right to express our reasonably
    30        held genuine beliefs.
    31
    32        London Greenpeace, as one of the earliest environmental
    33        groups in Europe, involving a wide range of campaigns and
    34        concerns, quite unusually in some ways for an environmental
    35        group concerned with such a broad range of issues as can be
    36        seen in the fact sheet.  Here we have really two worlds
    37        colliding in this courtroom because McDonald's is a symbol
    38        of a wider system, and London Greenpeace and the ideas
    39        which we have been defending in court are a symbol of an
    40        alternative point of view, and this conflict of ideas and
    41        beliefs and ways of living is occurring all over the world
    42        wherever people are standing up to corporations and those
    43        who are in power.
    44
    45        McDonald's have criticised, attacked, made submissions in
    46        pleadings against the continued distribution of leaflets by
    47        campaigners, by supporters, by McDonald's support
    48        campaign.  They have criticised the Mcspotlight Internet
    49        site and the fact that people have pledged to carry on
    50        distributing leaflets whatever the verdict in this trial, 
    51        but if we consider that McDonald's has not ceased its 
    52        advertising, has not ceased promoting itself and no doubt 
    53        will certainly use its experienced and highly resourced PR
    54        departments throughout the world to project what they
    55        consider has happened in this case to the public, then it
    56        is obvious that members of the public involved in
    57        campaigning groups, whatever, who are concerned with this
    58        case are bound to seek to put over their view of McDonald's
    59        and of this case.  And that can only be a good thing.  It
    60        is providing a public service to enable the public to have

Prev Next Index