Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 16


     
     1        made in the leaflet.
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:   Well, we would say it is distinctly relevant to
     4        that, that the inference on the criticism of their
     5        packaging in that section about destruction of forests and
     6        tropical forests, that the sting of it is that packaging is
     7        damaging to the environment, and the conclusion is that you
     8        are helping the McDonald's empire wreck the planet by using
     9        -- well, the tropical forests issue and cattle ranching,
    10        and also the packaging is a separate point in terms of it
    11        is not to do with rainforest, but it is part of that
    12        section because it is the one section that deals with their
    13        effects on the environment.
    14
    15        And the packaging elsewhere in the leaflet refers to
    16        plastic packaging, as I have pointed out.  Also Mcgarbage.
    17        If Mr. Rampton is going to use the headings as context then
    18        we are entitled to as well, although we say they are
    19        satirical pointers at the most.  But that is that.  Also,
    20        that we would wish to pray in aid any defamatory evidence
    21        that has been established in this case, especially those
    22        which McDonald's have taken up the gauntlet of course, that
    23        relate to any of the issues directly or indirectly.  It
    24        obviously relates to the issues in the fact sheet in terms
    25        of packaging, damage generally, the use of packaging being
    26        wasteful, junk and garbage.  So we would say on all those
    27        points, it is clearly relevant.  Exactly how centrally
    28        relevant you think it is, we would say it is centrally
    29        relevant, but it is certainly relevant, and McDonald's knew
    30        it was.
    31
    32   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That seems to me to be the issue.  You say
    33        the sting of it, the sting of this part of the leaflet is
    34        that it is damaging to the environment, and the question
    35        I have put, which may be what I have to answer, is - is the
    36        sting of it that packaging is damaging to the environment
    37        generally?  In which case the CFCs could come in.  Or is
    38        the sting of it that it is damaging to the environment
    39        through the effects of waste only?  And that is the
    40        question I have to answer, is it not?  If it is the former,
    41        CFCs come in; if it is the latter, they do not.
    42
    43   MR. MORRIS:   The production of it includes the damage to
    44        forests.  So the production of packaging is part of the
    45        sting.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   I appreciate that.  But no one is making
    48        clam shells out of wood.  That takes us back to paper.
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:   But then, if we say-----
    51
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am just asking about CFCs and HCFCs.
    53
    54   MR. MORRIS:   Yes, but if the production of packaging causes
    55        damage to the environment when it is their paper packaging,
    56        we would say, we must be entitled to say and pray in aid
    57        that the other packaging which is mentioned in the leaflet
    58        as junk, paper and plastic containers, by inference, that
    59        if the production of the plastic packaging is also damaging
    60        to the environment, then we should pray that in aid.  Well,

Prev Next Index