Day 288 - 28 Oct 96 - Page 27
1
2 So they are not only utterly indifferent; they are
3 positively hostile to the welfare of animals, because it is
4 completely in contradiction and conflict with the need to
5 make maximum profits out of the flesh of that being. So
6 I would say they are positively hostile to the welfare of
7 the animals that end up in their products.
8
9 Maybe I can make the rest of my points after lunch.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, very well. I think you have to think
12 about how productive this is for both of you to go over the
13 same ground. If I may say so, without seeming to be rude,
14 I am not going to be at all sympathetic to an extension of
15 your time, even of half a day, beyond the time limit I
16 give, if I get the impression that when one of you is
17 getting on perfectly competently, putting submissions on a
18 topic, the other comes in and takes unnecessary time making
19 points which may be less appealing.
20
21 I will come back at two o'clock.
22
23 (Luncheon Adjournment)
24
25 MR. MORRIS: If I can just to go back to the previous point
26 that I made, maybe express it a little more clearly, that I
27 do not consider that suffering of animals is acceptable to
28 the public. The point I am making about the meaning of the
29 leaflet under this section, that the Plaintiffs say that
30 the meaning is utterly indifferent, but we are saying that
31 is not the meaning, that they are utterly indifferent, but
32 they are more than utterly indifferent because the needs of
33 the animals -- the welfare needs and the natural behaviour
34 of the animals -- actually is in direct conflict with the
35 needs of the industry to create a product out of that
36 animal.
37
38 So, what I am trying to say is, it is more than utterly
39 indifferent; it is not, welfare consideration is not
40 something which they have forgotten about or not concerned
41 with, they are positively heeding to suppress the welfare
42 of the animals in the food chain because the more welfare
43 the animals have the more damaging that would be to the
44 profit margins, which are the whole basis for the whole
45 system. That is what I was trying to say.
46
47 When I said they were positively hostile, I did not mean to
48 say they relish the suffering to birds or cattle. It is
49 that they are institutionally hostile in that the two
50 things are in conflict. Welfare and profits are in
51 conflict. Obviously, Mr. Oakley's recognition that the
52 company does not go beyond what the law stipulates, that is
53 what their welfare policy is all about, it is the law which
54 is forced upon McDonald's and they cannot claim any credit
55 for that, because obviously it would be illegal if they did
56 not at least accept those conditions. As we have heard.
57 Anyway, there are ifs and buts whether they do accept those
58 conditions, anyway, which we certainly would say are
59 completely inadequate protection for the animals.
60
