Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 48


     
     1        hot dog salesman on the corner at large.  The only
              difference between them really from a hot dog or hamburger
     2        stall is the massive image promotion from day 1 which they
              have managed to sustain.
     3
              So it says something about the corporations which is
     4        touched on in the leaflet, but it also says something
              about their motive for trying to suppress all their
     5        critics, because if they were a corporation that did not
              rely on their image, then would they be so loose with the
     6        writs they throw around to stop criticisms?
 
     7        It is about militarisation of the workplace, the
              regimentation of the workplace, of animals, plantation of
     8        forests; it is an attitude which they are promoting.  It
              is about the abuse of language.  Throughout this trial,
     9        all parties -- certainly we will (and the court will) --
              will have to really think about the language that is being
    10        used in the leaflets, in McDonald's documents, in the
              pleadings, because what may appear to be one thing may, in
    11        fact, be hiding another thing.
 
    12        I know it sounds daft, but after four years of analysing
              McDonald's documents, you begin to see certain
    13        similarities in the way they manipulate language to appear
              to say one thing but, in fact, means something else.  That
    14        is something that throughout the trial will be a feature
              of the trial.  What are they hiding?  What are they
    15        saying?  What are they not saying?
 
    16        There is another thing which will be a feature of this
              trial which is, is McDonald's trying to clothe itself with
    17        a mantel of environmentalist organisations or the green
              image?  I cannot remember where I have seen it.  I think
    18        there is a document on this somewhere where that is a
              policy of theirs to try to get chummy with certain groups
    19        in order to take on that mantel or appear to; for example,
              backing the Tidy Britain Group.
    20
              Here we have an organisation which is probably the biggest
    21        single cause of environment/index.html">litter in this country backing the Tidy
              Britain Group.  I am not saying they should not, but I am
    22        saying that again that does not mean they can avoid their
              responsibility for the environment/index.html">litter that is produced.  That goes
    23        for a lot of things.  They seem to choose particular
              organisations to under cut criticisms.  For example,
    24        supporting a nature reserve in Costa Rica -- to replant a
              rainforest, one may ask?  It is not really evidence but
    25        why are they doing that?
  
    26        So we are talking in this country, it is a subsidiary of 
              the US multi-national, most of the directors in this 
    27        country are from the States.  Again that is not an
              anti-American point, but it is a recognition of the
    28        control mechanism that McDonald's Corporation has, sort
              of, internationally when it expands.
    29
              They have said they are like one big happy family, but we
    30        have to ask ourselves through this trial:  Is everybody in
              McDonald's corporation equal?  What are the wages paid at

Prev Next Index