Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 16

     
     1
              We believe that they never expected us to be able to fight
     2        this case.  In the first couple of years after the writs
              were served, the process was long and drawn out.  Then
     3        suddenly it speeded up when McDonald's realised we were
              determined to stand up for our rights.  They did not
     4        believe that we could personally or financially or legally
              overcome all the obstacles that have been placed in our
     5        path to bring this case to its conclusion.
 
     6        We believe it will be a show trial, and they are seeking
              to clothe their business practices with the seal of legal
     7        approval in a very unsatisfactory and unfair, imbalanced
              situation.  We believe it will be a propaganda platform
     8        for the McDonald's Corporation.  The indications are that
              they are in their evidence avoiding the material times of
     9        the circulation of the fact sheet which seems to be 1985
              to 1989 in which the fact sheet was in circulation through
    10        London Greenpeace.
 
         But in all their evidence they focus on the last few
              years, the 1990s, with very little information about the
    12        relevant times to the case.  An example has been given
              already by Helen about packaging, examples on rainforests
    13        that applies and other matters.  The documents they
              disclose, the large bulk of them, do not relate to the
    14        material times.
 
    15        So, we believe overall, on the bringing of this case, that
              we have a duty to defend the fact sheet.  It is in the
    16        public interest that we defend the fact sheet.  It is in
              the public interest that we defend the right of the public
    17        to criticise the McDonald's Corporation and other similar
              corporations, who will be watching this case to see if
    18        they can do the same to their critics that McDonald's
              corporation is doing to its.  We certainly hope this
    19        creeping censorship will not succeed.  We do believe that
              the fact sheet is true and is fair comment.  I will be
    20        going through that in detail.
 
         We believe it is not only the public's right but also
              their duty to criticise those with wealth and power in
    22        society.  I am not over familiar with libel laws in other
              countries.  It has taken me a long time to get familiar
    23        with the libel law in this country, but I know that in the
              United States this case probably could never have been
    24        brought because of the constitutional guarantees on rights
              of expression.
    25
              In Germany, I believe, if somebody is sued and forced to 
    26        apologise and to apologise on the terms dictated by those 
              suing them, and it turns out that, in fact, what they were 
    27        saying had been true, they could sue the organisation for
              compensation.  So, if we were to lose this case because of
    28        our lack of resources and experience, and then it was to
              be found out that the facts were true or, for example, the
    29        Bournemouth Advertiser or the BBC or others that have been
              sued under false pretences, then they would be now suing
    30        the McDonald's Corporation for compensation.