Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 31


     
     1        When they questioned Helen in the witness box, she clearly
     2        justified her reasonable belief on every matter and
     3        Mr. Rampton made absolutely no progress in any of the
     4        questioning of her on the subject, because there is not one
     5        shred of evidence that could be brought to court to show
     6        that we did not genuinely believe and do not still now
     7        genuinely believe all the allegations which have been
     8        brought up in this court based on the London Greenpeace
     9        fact sheet.
    10
    11        I am not saying that every single fact that we alleged in
    12        the pleadings has been proven, for example, in the
    13        extensive justification pleadings about employment.  I am
    14        not saying that out of a hundred points I am convinced
    15        every one out of a hundred is proven.  You know, I believe
    16        maybe 97 of them might be accurate and 90 of them proven.
    17        You know, I do not say that too literally, but the point
    18        being the substance and sting of all the allegations in the
    19        fact sheet we believe has been not only proven but is
    20        certainly based upon commonly held views, backed up by
    21        experts.
    22
    23        And I think, moving on from the lack of evidence on malice
    24        and lying from the plaintiffs against us, I think there are
    25        some things I want to say further about the counterclaim
    26        and about the malice allegations.  I have said it before,
    27        I will just say it again, that the context of the
    28        criticisms of McDonald's, two important contexts for why
    29        malice cannot apply.
    30
    31        The context of the fact sheet is a criticism of a whole
    32        industry and type of economics personified by McDonald's,
    33        who are an important factor in that industry, and,
    34        secondly, that the criticisms are not made for the sake of
    35        it; they are made because there is genuine concern about
    36        better ways that society should be run on all these issues
    37        and defending people's health and workers' rights,
    38        self-sufficient farming, ecology and animal rights, for
    39        example.  And although McDonald's did not sue over the back
    40        page, it is an essential part of the context of the fact
    41        sheets and I would hope it would be read carefully to
    42        inquire into that.
    43
    44        I think it is important also the language in the fact sheet
    45        and the way it is worded, what it is trying to communicate
    46        to the reader is important in terms of whether there is any
    47        malice.  Obviously, some of the allegations in it are hard
    48        hitting.  McDonald's aggressively promotes itself as a good
    49        thing and it is inevitable that critics are going to have
    50        strong views when putting overall alternatives.  But 
    51        I think the language in the fact sheet is very restrained 
    52        and persuasive without being aggressive.  And I think you 
    53        already know our views about the satirical nature of the
    54        golden arches headings and the cartoons, and that we do not
    55        believe weight should be given to what is at the most a
    56        satirical comment on what the text is actually trying to
    57        say.
    58
    59        The other thing about malice is that because these are  all
    60        -- I am now just going to come to some general points

Prev Next Index