Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 07
1 an alternative point of view and to be able to judge for
2 themselves not only about the McDonald's corporation in
3 general, but also about what has happened in this case, a
4 very important case that is now three times longer than any
5 previous libel trial in this country.
6
7 It could be argued that because children have no rights to
8 protect themselves from McDonald's advertising targeting
9 them, because, as we have learned in this case, workers at
10 McDonald's have no rights to defend themselves against
11 management's control over them, because animals have no
12 rights in the way they are abused for the food industry and
13 there is precious little protection for the environment and
14 all the other matters we have heard of in this case, that
15 the distribution of information about McDonald's by those
16 who hold an alternative point of view, an opposing point of
17 view, is privileged self-defence against McDonald's
18 relentless and intrusive corporate propaganda and business
19 practices.
20
21 And, as we have heard from McDonald's, they take their
22 advertising and their influence very seriously, with quotes
23 like 'dominate the communications area', 'children are
24 virgin territory as far as marketing is concerned', and 'we
25 are competing for a share of the customers' mind'. Just
26 some quotes which I find personally quite sinister, but no
27 doubt it is fairly standard in the advertising industry.
28 But certainly it seems to be something which McDonald's are
29 quite proud of.
30
31 We believe that libel laws in this country are unfair and
32 should we lose we certainly aim to take matters further to
33 appeal and to the European Court of Human Rights, but the
34 European Court of Human Rights and Convention, European
35 Convention of Human Rights, has, I believe, persuasive
36 force in this court. Article 6 says that a fair trial is
37 essential, that there must be an equality of arms, both
38 sides must have adequate facilities, I think that is the
39 words they use, and although when we went to the European
40 court before over the refusal of the British government to
41 allow legal aid for libel that certainly, as this case has
42 now become, it is obvious that legal aid is essential for
43 enabling a free trial and a trial can be declared unfair
44 and we believe, if we lose, in fact even if we win, we may
45 still go to the European Court of Human Rights to try to
46 ensure that this situation does not occur again, because
47 even if we win, I cannot imagine anybody, any member of
48 public in this country, wanting to go through what we have
49 been through in order to defend their rights to hold
50 reasonably genuinely held beliefs.
51
52 Article 10, freedom of expression, is in fact the test for
53 libel. We believe that article 10 says that the test is
54 reasonable belief, that this should be the test and we
55 submit -- and we will make more detailed submission when we
56 have completed it -- that the burden of proof on an
57 unrepresented and non-legally aided defendant against such
58 an organisation as a multi-national corporation is clearly
59 unfair and that the test should be reasonable belief.
60
