the other press

 

 

>>> FEATURES

Taking on the Golden firches

McLibel defendant shares tales of the
longest court case in British history

Michelle French
Tue Manitopan

(CUP) - It’s not easy being a multinational corporation like
McDonald’s, with a constant flow of anti-globalization activists con-
demning their business practices. Some companies appease, others

production facilities.

Although the campaign was very popular with the public,
McDonald’s issued legal writs and successfully received public apolo-
gies from groups that raised concerns including the BBC, newspa-
pers, vegetarian and student groups and trade unions.

Greenpeace was the last to be sued by McDonald’s in 1990
because— Morris suggests—‘“hey thought that we were the most like-
ly to actually fight a case.”

With no legal aid, Morris and Steel defended themselves to “protect
the public’s right to criticize the rich and powerful.”

In spite of McDonald’s forecast of a

 

millions advertising kinder, friendlier
images of themselves. McDonald’s is in
the business of suing critics for
defamation.

“We put McDonald’s and McWorld on
trial,” exclaimed an enthusiastic Dave
Morris, the former defendant in the infa-
mous McLibel UK court case, to a
group of rapt activists and students ina
small classroom at the University of
Winnipeg.

He should have a chip on his shoul-
der. Morris, along with fellow London
Greenpeace activist Helen Steel, were
sued by McDonald's in the early ‘90s
for their involvement in a Greenpeace-
initiated anti-McDonald’s _leafleting
campaign. When the judge delivered
his 800 page verdict on June 19, 1997,
Morris and Steel owed McDonald’s
60,000 Ibs in damages.

They haven't paid. They are also
involved in taking the British govern-
ment to the European Court under
charges of unfair libel laws.

In spite of debt and years of legal
frustration, Morris has been charming
students and activists in North America
with his positive disposition, preferring to interpret the story of his con-
viction as a success both for himself and international anti-corporate
activists, as he engages in a series of post-conviction talks in
Winnipeg, Houston and Chicago.

ignore their critics and still others spend

 

The McLibel trial

In the mid-1980s, London Greenpeace adopted a negative stance
towards corporate influence and what they deemed exploitative busi-
ness practices. London Greenpeace began to target McDonald's, dis-
tributing thousands of leaflets entitled “What's Wrong with
McDonald’s—Everything They Don’t Want You to Know’ as part of a
broader educational campaign against the multinational food industry.

“McDonald’s symbolized the direction in which the [food] industry
was going,” Morris explained.

Morris links the food industry with such issues as the production of
cash crops for export and its correlation to Third World poverty and
environmental degradation. He also points to over-packaging, nutri-
tional liabilities in fast food, false and promotional advertising to chil-
dren, animal welfare practices and labour conditions in service and

 

quick, victorious show trial of three to
four weeks, McLibel ran longer than
anyone predicted: the trial began in
June of 1994, became the longest libel
trial in British history in March of 1995,
the longest civil case in December
1995, and the longest trial period in
English history in November 1996.

In the end, McDonald’s won the case
and the defendants were ordered to
pay the company 60,000 Ibs in dam-
ages.

~

Successful defeat,

unsuccessful victory

Victory is sweeter for some than oth-
ers. The McLibel trial may have ended
successfully for the company, but not
before over 130 witnesses—some topi-
cal experts—from both sides of the
issues, explored the effects. of
McDonald’s operations on human
health, the environment, animal welfare
practices, the Third World and labour.

Top corporate executives from the UK
and the U.S. were also forced to testify.

According to Morris, who claims that
British libel laws are biased in favour of
“the rich and powerful,’ he knew from the outset that the judge would
rule in favour of McDonald's, but it didn’t matter. Breaking down the
company’s “idiot propaganda to try to get to the truth and make them
admit it,” was London Greenpeace’s main objective.

The High Court in London issued some very damning statements
regarding McDonald’s core business practices. In his ruling, Justice
Bell stated that McDonald's “exploits children” through advertising,
that they are “culpably responsible” for cruelty to animals because of
their influence over the process that animals undergo and suffer, that
the company’s anti-union stance and blanket minimum wage employ-
ment strategy helps to depress existent low wages in the fast food
industry and that McDonald's food is “high in fat, saturated fat, animal
products and sodium” and that “advertisements, promotions and book-
lets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's
food ... did not match.”

But despite these statements, Morris says that his victory was shal-
low. “Despite what we won, no sanctions were taken out whatsoever.
They weren't ordered to stop exploiting children or fined,’ he said.

Other issues, such as McDonald's involvement in rainforest deple-
tion, Third World poverty and increased risks of cancer, heart disease