Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 46


     
     1        that McDonald's own or control" -- the words he uses --
     2        "land in the Third World but just that the question is
     3        whether they are responsible for damage that may thereby be
     4        caused by their business by that supply chain".
     5
     6        On the second column, above the picture, "which keeps most
     7        black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat".
     8        This is a comment, we would say, of the effect of economic
     9        imperialism in general.
    10
    11        The next column is, "Why is it wrong for McDonald's to
    12        destroy rainforests?"  We would say that is comment.  The
    13        word "destroy" is a...  What is the word?  It does not
    14        imply that McDonald's are doing it necessarily themselves,
    15        it is a sort of overall comment on the responsibility that
    16        McDonald's have for rainforest destruction.  Also in the
    17        second paragraph in that section about "McDonald's and
    18        Burger King are two of the many US Corporations using
    19        lethal poisons", we would say 'using' is comment.
    20
    21        Under 'colonial invasion' - "McDonald's and many other
    22        corporations are contributing to a major ecological
    23        catastrophe", we say that is a general charge and
    24        Mr. Rampton, we say, recognises that when he says it is
    25        generally descriptive of the facts put before it.
    26        Therefore, it would relate to the damage to forests, and
    27        also we are entitled to pray in aid anything which has come
    28        up as evidence in this case that would be relevant to
    29        ecological damage which would go towards justifying that
    30        general charge of McDonald's contribution.  "McDonald's and
    31        many other Corporations collectively are contributing to a
    32        major ecological catastrophe".
    33
    34        So, we would argue that what that means is, are McDonald's
    35        with other corporations collectively contributing to
    36        ecological damage?
    37
    38        Then at the end of that paragraph, "arrogance and
    39        viciousness of multi-national companies and their endless
    40        search for more and more profit"; we would say that is
    41        comment - fair comment, of course, we would say.  And the
    42        phrase, "helping the McDonald's empire to wreck this
    43        planet" is fair comment in the light of all the previous
    44        general charges and comments and facts in that fact sheet.
    45
    46        McDonald's food being unhealthy, we would say that is fair
    47        comment.  That is in the heading, it is the next section,
    48        because although obviously there is a whole factual
    49        substratum about all that, but it is a fair comment that
    50        anyone is entitled to draw.  The third line, "irrelevant
    51        facts and figures".  It may not matter at all in the
    52        evidence in the case but basically that is comment, whether
    53        the facts and figures are irrelevant or not.
    54
    55        "The accepted medical facts", we would say the word
    56        "accepted" is a comment.  I mean, I think we have
    57        demonstrated that, yes, that the facts are accepted, but
    58        we, certainly someone, could certainly consider they are
    59        accepted if it is accepted by the World Health Organisation
    60        and other bodies.

Prev Next Index