Day 288 - 28 Oct 96 - Page 25
1 take the world as it is and I really wonder whether the
2 ordinary person does think that that is defamatory, whether
3 he does think any the less of the company because it has
4 large quantities, numbers of animals reared and slaughtered
5 for its profits.
6
7 At the moment I am minded to think that is not defamatory
8 and that is why I drew attention to the first sentence of
9 your pleaded meaning. You may say it is a poor comment on
10 the world, that it does not reduce the reputation of the
11 company in ordinary people's eyes, but since the majority
12 of people happily go on eating meat I find it difficult at
13 the moment to see that it is defamatory. That is why
14 I interrupted you.
15
16 Once you go on to say that, once the meaning is -- well,
17 query whether animals are suffering and McDonald's are
18 responsible for it. If you say they are utterly
19 indifferent, then that is, I would have thought,
20 defamatory. And if the sting was something different, that
21 McDonald's condone or are responsible for cruel or inhumane
22 practices in the rearing and slaughter of animals, then
23 that, I would have thought, is defamatory.
24
25 MR. MORRIS: I do not think people like cruelty to animals.
26 Especially in this country, there is a long tradition of
27 being opposed to it. The fact that companies get away with
28 it on a mass scale ----
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, no, you must listen to what I am saying.
31 I have just said that that would be defamatory.
32
33 MR. MORRIS: But it is cruel to raise animals, it is one
34 thing -- it is cruel, for example, to kill an animal, it is
35 cruel. It is obvious, because nobody would allow that for
36 an animal they had any relationship with.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You can go along this line if you want but I
39 am not at the moment finding it very helpful, because
40 however many people there are who share your point of view,
41 I think I would find it very difficult to say that on
42 balance of probabilities, the putative ordinary reader of
43 this would think less of McDonald's because they are
44 responsible for the rearing and slaughter of a large number
45 of animals.
46
47 I will repeat what I said a moment ago; you may deplore
48 that that is the situation, but I think it probably is the
49 situation. What you have to have is something which is
50 actually critical of McDonald's in their attitude. I do
51 not think there is any problem about that. That is where
52 I think torture comes in. This leaflet clearly has a
53 general defamatory charge, it seems to me, and it is a
54 question of whether you express it as utter indifference or
55 condoning or being responsible for cruel, which is the word
56 I used and then you adopted yourself, or inhumane
57 practices.
58
59 And I do not think there is any need for you to have
60 concern about this, but the moment you start saying "we can
