Day 288 - 28 Oct 96 - Page 27


     
     1
     2        So they are not only utterly indifferent; they are
     3        positively hostile to the welfare of animals, because it is
     4        completely in contradiction and conflict with the need to
     5        make maximum profits out of the flesh of that being.  So
     6        I would say they are positively hostile to the welfare of
     7        the animals that end up in their products.
     8
     9        Maybe I can make the rest of my points after lunch.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, very well.  I think you have to think
    12        about how productive this is for both of you to go over the
    13        same ground.  If I may say so, without seeming to be rude,
    14        I am not going to be at all sympathetic to an extension of
    15        your time, even of half a day, beyond the time limit I
    16        give, if I get the impression that when one of you is
    17        getting on perfectly competently, putting submissions on a
    18        topic, the other comes in and takes unnecessary time making
    19        points which may be less appealing.
    20
    21        I will come back at two o'clock.
    22
    23                         (Luncheon Adjournment)
    24
    25   MR. MORRIS:   If I can just to go back to the previous point
    26        that I made, maybe express it a little more clearly, that I
    27        do not consider that suffering of animals is acceptable to
    28        the public.  The point I am making about the meaning of the
    29        leaflet under this section, that the Plaintiffs say that
    30        the meaning is utterly indifferent, but we are saying that
    31        is not the meaning, that they are utterly indifferent, but
    32        they are more than utterly indifferent because the needs of
    33        the animals -- the welfare needs and the natural behaviour
    34        of the animals -- actually is in direct conflict with the
    35        needs of the industry to create a product out of that
    36        animal.
    37
    38        So, what I am trying to say is, it is more than utterly
    39        indifferent; it is not, welfare consideration is not
    40        something which they have forgotten about or not concerned
    41        with, they are positively heeding to suppress the welfare
    42        of the animals in the food chain because the more welfare
    43        the animals have the more damaging that would be to the
    44        profit margins, which are the whole basis for the whole
    45        system.  That is what I was trying to say.
    46
    47        When I said they were positively hostile, I did not mean to
    48        say they relish the suffering to birds or cattle.  It is
    49        that they are institutionally hostile in that the two
    50        things are in conflict.  Welfare and profits are in 
    51        conflict.  Obviously, Mr. Oakley's recognition that the 
    52        company does not go beyond what the law stipulates, that is 
    53        what their welfare policy is all about, it is the law which
    54        is forced upon McDonald's and they cannot claim any credit
    55        for that, because obviously it would be illegal if they did
    56        not at least accept those conditions.  As we have heard.
    57        Anyway, there are ifs and buts whether they do accept those
    58        conditions, anyway, which we certainly would say are
    59        completely inadequate protection for the animals.
    60

Prev Next Index