Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 14
1 trial. There is enormous imbalance in this case which has
been described by one legal commentator, he could not
2 think of a case where "the cards had been so spectacularly
stacked against one party". That was Marcele Berlins.
3
The legality of the case is we believe that the libel laws
4 are open to criticism in any event, but that following a
House of Lords' ruling that governmental organisations
5 shall not have recourse to libel laws to suppress their
critics in the interest of freedom of speech, it is clear
6 that a multi-national corporation with massive power and
influence should also not have recourse to libel laws to
7 suppress their critics. We also believe that European
legal developments may outlaw future cases such as this.
8
It is spectacularly unfair, the whole process that we have
9 had to go through. I am going to go into it in more
detail, but just the last three years, just the
10 complexity, the obstacles we have had to face and the
decisions that have been made that have hampered our
11 preparations and our rights.
12 The fact sheet: "What is wrong with McDonald's?
Everything they don't want you to know", I am going to go
13 into in detail later on, as Mr. Rampton did. It is a
strongly worded and comprehensive look at the McDonald's
14 Corporation, but not just the McDonald's Corporation; it
is looking at them as an example of an aggressive catalyst
15 organisation, as part of a fastfood industry, as part of
what many US corporations are responsible for and part of
16 what big business in general is responsible for.
17 So, it cannot be said that the leaflet is a vindictive
leaflet, that is only interested in undermining the
18 commercial position of one organisation. McDonald's set
themselves up through their public profile to be looked at
19 and scrutinized and that is what the leaflet does. Our
case will be that it is true fair comment, a matter of
20 opinion, and I will go through those issues later on to
identify them.
21
McDonald's have said that the leaflet is all lies. We
22 have counterclaimed, saying that this is an insult to
their critics; that they should apologise for that. They
23 have also attacked us in national leaflets and press
statements and, by implication, all their critics as
24 liars. Because of the counterclaim, McDonald's are now
for the first time since the case started also put to
25 proof that line by line that leaflet is incorrect, untrue,
and also that people have known it is untrue, which makes
26 the libel laws not so unfair and imbalanced because only
defendants are under a burden of proof in a normal case.
27
With the counterclaim both parties on each issue are put
28 to the burden of proof. We will demonstrate that the
McDonald's Corporation is responsible for seven corporate
29 deadly sins. We will demonstrate they are a bullying
organisation that throw their weight around, undemocratic,
30 that their workers have no rights, that they manipulate,
they manipulate society for their own ends.
