Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 29
1 Just before I leave that and go on to the main point, the
case against me, so that the public can appreciate this
2 and the court can appreciate this, as far as I can see
I attended a meeting when leaflets were on the table and
3 that I put a copy of the fact sheet in an envelope where
it was sent to somebody. I do not believe there is any
4 other evidence apart from what Mr. Rampton called "common
purpose", which to me sounds like a sinister catch in the
5 law enabling the plaintiffs to avoid their responsibility
for having to prove that part of the case.
6
At the time of the alleged libel my partner, as she then
7 was, had suffered a terrible accident, and my child was 3
months old. I spent the entire time of the alleged libel
8 looking after both of them virtually single handedly. At
the same time Mr. Rampton is saying I was a core member
9 and leading light in the anti-McDonald's campaign.
10
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Would you like to break off there? We will
11 resume at 2 o'clock.
12 (Short adjournment)
13 2.00 p.m.
14 MR. MORRIS: We will do this afternoon is go through the fact
sheet section by section, as Mr. Rampton did yesterday,
15 although I am not as polished as he is, so I might get a
bit confused. Just a couple of general points:
16 Mr. Rampton said that was false in every material aspect
and that McDonald's hoped to establish things at the
17 trial. The only way they can do that is by bringing proof
to court that the material section by section or line by
18 line is untrue, or they cannot establish that it is false
in every material aspect. So we both have to prove the
19 truth or untruth of the fact sheet.
20 The first section is general comment really. The first
evidential section is the connection between McDonald's
21 and starvation in the Third World. The second paragraph
is "Hungry for Dollars". It is our case that "McDonald's
22 is one of several giant corporations with investments in
vast tracts of land in poor countries", these investments
23 are beef, cattle and food stuffs for cattle, and the
result of these investments is that the cattle evict the
24 small farmers that live there, or the soya produce evicts
the small farmers that live there growing food for their
25 own people; so our case will be that what we loosely call
the imperialism argument in respect of the cash crops and
26 whatever.
27 The second point -- just give me time to gather my
thoughts -- the reason I got confused because Mr. Rampton
28 went through them in a different order; he started with
recycling and waste.
29
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Would it help you if I told you what I noted
30 which, of course, was not all Mr. Rampton said in relation
to the leaflet? I do not want to force you off course.
