Organic Consumers Association

OCA
Homepage

Previous Page

Click here to print this page

Make a Donation!

JOIN THE OCA NETWORK!

McLibel: UK Activists Win Court Case Against McDonald's

From: Democracy Now <www.democracynow.org> 2/16/05

Wednesday, February 16th, 2005
McLibel: British Activists Sued for Distributing McDonald's Flyers Win Court
Case


Two activists sued by McDonalds in Britain won their case against the
British government, in a case that could change UK libel law forever. The
European Court of Human Rights said the UK legal system breached the right
to a fair trial and freedom of expression. Activists David Morris and Helen
Steel were sued by McDonalds in 1990 for handing out leaflets called "What"s
Wrong with McDonald's", accusing the company of paying low wages, cruelty to
animals used in its products and dozens of other malpractices.

McDonald's won and was awarded £40,000 in libel damages. But the so-called
"McLibel Two" refused to pay at the end of a trial. Yesterday, they won
their claim that the libel trial was unfair - in the longest civil or
criminal action in English legal history. David Morris spoke outside a
McDonalds in Britain moments after the ruling

€ David Morris and Helen Steel, speaking on Feb. 15

They now join us on the phone from Britain.

€ David Morris, plaintiff in McLibel case.


€ Helen Steel, plaintiff in McLibel case.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us
provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV
broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: David Morris spoke outside a McDonald's in Britain, moments
after the ruling.

DAVID MORRIS: Right. This is a victory, not only did we score some amazing
victories in the court in the UK, because the judge ruled that McDonald's
exploits children with their advertising, that they deceptively promote
their food as nutritious, that they ­

HELEN STEEL: Pay low wages.

DAVID MORRIS: Pay low wages. Lowest wages in the industry, and they are
responsible for cruelty to animals. On top of that, we won further at the
court of appeals. This is our third major court hearing, and we won hands
down both our points, that the libel laws in this country are oppressive and
they're unfair.

AMY GOODMAN: That was former postman David Morris. The other person in the
case was Helen Steel. She also spoke after the ruling.

HELEN STEEL: It was a nightmare fighting the case, but at the same time
it's a unique opportunity to examine the inner workings of a multinational
company and expose the reality, get it out in the open, because normally
that's kept under wraps.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Helen Steel, David Morris, as they join us on the
phone now from Britain. David Morris, can you talk about this case, which
has two aspects -- first, what you said about McDonald's, and their suit
against you and finally the significance of this court case, which goes to
British libel law. You might change British libel law forever.

DAVID MORRIS: Well, it's a very long case to sum up, really. 15 years of
legal argument and legal action. But basically, McDonald's brought the case
to try to silence public criticism that was being made, particularly by
London Greenpeace but it has also sued dozens of other organizations before
they sued us. Everybody backed down because the laws are well known to be
stacked in favor of the rich and powerful in the UK. So, the climate of fear
is being created where no one was prepared to speak out about the company.
But we decided that we had to fight the case, because on principle, to
defend freedom of speech. And so, it went on from there, really, we didn't
know what we were doing at the beginning, but by the time it got to trial,
you know, we were getting more and more experienced, getting victories, we
were getting documents, the company was forced to disclose documents that
would otherwise have remained hidden, and so on and so forth. And really, it
became the longest trial in English history and we had some devastating
verdicts against McDonald's as you heard, at the end of that case, but,
amazingly, no legal sanctions were ordered against McDonald's, for what they
had lost. And yet we were expected to pay the company, this huge
corporation, 40,000 pounds. That's what forced us, really, to go to the
European courts to say that the laws are ridiculous in the UK.

AMY GOODMAN: Helen Steel, what was your reaction to the ruling?

HELEN STEEL: Well, obviously, you know, we're very pleased that the court
-- the European court in Strasbourg has finally recognized what we have been
saying for the last 15 years, which is that UK libel laws are oppressive and
unfair and act as a barrier to freedom speech for ordinary people, but at
the same time we also think, you know, it should be recognized just how much
we won, despite all of those odds stacked against us, you know. So, yes it's
just -- well, it's like one victory on top of another, it's great.

AMY GOODMAN: Helen, there were actually five of you that McDonald's sued
but only two of you remained in this. Why, and what happened to the other
three?

HELEN STEEL: Well, when we got -- when McDonald's served the writs on us,
we were actually told that because there's no legal aid for libel, and
because the UK libel laws are so complicated and oppressive, that we didn't
really stand a chance of being able to work our way through all of the
complex procedures and so on. And under those circumstances, the other three
people reluctantly felt they had -- that they were forced into apologizing,
and they have actually retracted that apology, and said that basically, it
was made under duress, but when it came to my turn to sort of say, well,
okay, you know, we'll run and hide into nothing, it stuck in my throat to
apologize to McDonald's. I felt like, well, it's actually McDonald's who
should be apologizing to society for the damage they do to society and the
environment. And I just decided that really, come what may, I was going to
fight it, just because I thought it was bad to give in to bullying and
intimidation.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Helen Steel and David Morris. We're going to
break and then when we come back, we'll talk about the actual charges they
made against McDonald's and their pamphlets that they gave to people outside
of McDonald's, and then we're going to look at a case in the United States
where McDonald's has just settled a major lawsuit that was brought by a
website called ban trans fats -- bantransfat.com, about a very dangerous oil
that is used in their food that most people thought they were no longer
using. This is Democracy Now!. Our guests are Helen Steel and David Morris.
We'll be back with them in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: As we look at McDonald's in Britain and the United States,
major lawsuit against activists, a former postman, a former farmer in
Britain and then we'll look at the case of the use of trans fats by
McDonald's in the United States. We'll be speaking with people who sued them
here. We're going to go back to our guests in Britain right now. Again, who
won a major legal victory. Can you talk about what was in the pamphlet you
gave out to people who were going to McDonald's?

HELEN STEEL: Well, basically, the leaflet criticizes McDonald's for
promoting unhealthy food, exploiting their workers through low pay and
through the fact that they're hostile to trade unions. The damage to the
environment through masses of unnecessary packaging, cruelty to the animals
reared for the meat products, and it criticized their massive advertising
budget and the targeting of children through the advertising. I mean,
they're all basically common sense criticisms that are actually made quite
widely now. You know, London Greenpeace wasn't actually the first to make
those criticisms in any event. It just kind of brought all of the different
criticisms together to take a kind of overall look at the effects of
multinational corporations on society.

DAVID MORRIS: I think also, it's fair to say that it wasn't just McDonald's
that was under the spotlight, it was basically McDonald's as a symbol of
what the whole fast food industry and multinationals together, the whole
economic system is doing in terms of its domination over our lives and our
environment.

AMY GOODMAN: And so then, explain exactly what happened. You're giving out
pamphlets. How many days did you do it and what happened? How did McDonald's
approach you when they sued you?

DAVID MORRIS: Well, London Greenpeace had started a campaign against
McDonald's and the whole fast food industry and the leaflets that were being
given out were fantastically well received by the public, because McDonald's
spends $2 billion every year through their advertising, in practically
forcing their views on the public, and people were crying out for an
alternative point of view. So, the group was quite enthusiastic about the
way things were being received, but of course, McDonald's had a different
idea about it, and the first contact that members of the group had with
McDonald's were the writs, which were served saying there's going to be a
court case.

AMY GOODMAN: And so at the point where you lost the case, on what grounds
or you won on some points, lost on others? What grounds did you win on and
then lose on?

HELEN STEEL: Well it, was a mixed verdict. You know, remarkably, the judge
managed to find that they weren't responsible for litter or environmental
damage, but he actually found that they were -- that their food is pretended
to have positive nutritional benefit -- sorry the advertising had pretended
to a positive nutritional benefit, which their food didn't match, and that
they exploit children with their advertising strategy, that they were
responsible for animal cruelty, that they paid low wages, helping to depress
wages in the catering trade, and then we also won further points on appeal
about basically that if you ate enough of McDonald's food, your diet might
well become high in fat with a very real risk of heart disease and also
further points about employment conditions.

DAVID MORRIS: So pretty much their core business practices were found to
be, you know, strongly lacking. These were devastating -- probably the worst
judgments ever made against a multinational corporation. We didn't win on
all points. We didn't win on concerns over food safety issues. We didn't win
over the McDonald's direct involvement in destruction of rain forests even
though the beef industry as a whole has been very strongly responsible for
some of the devastation of Amazonian forests. So, you know, it was our
continuing arguments, and we went to appeal and then we took it to the
European court.

AMY GOODMAN: And so now, what happens? Do you get paid back for your --
what is this -- 15 years of legal struggle?

DAVID MORRIS: Well, really it's not about money, is it? It's about matters
of principle. We really felt actually we had already won, we had beaten
McDonald's in the actual trial. But most importantly, not just inside the
courtroom, but outside the courtroom, leaflets are now being given out to
millions all over the world, criticizing the company, but more important
than that, there's a vibrant public debate, and increasing concern to
challenge the promotion of unhealthy food, to look at what multinationals
are doing to our lives, as a whole anti-capitalist movement that's grown up
in the last ten years, which I think the McLibel campaign helped to
stimulate. And I think people are looking for a real alternative. Obviously,
there's still a lot of work to do. Multinationals and governments still
dominate our lives for their own interests. We're part of, you know, a
number of different groups and campaigns that are trying to change things
for the better. Mostly in the area where we live, which is in North London.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us, David
Morris, and Helen Steel. Who were sued by McDonald's, and -- report
McDonald's has said -- the McDonald's U.K. Office, that the case related to
a claim made against the British government, it was therefore inappropriate
for the company to comment on this case, or its outcome. The company said
it's impossible to note the allegations related to practices in the 1980's.
The world has moved on since then, and so has McDonald's. David Morris, I'll
give you the final world.

DAVID MORRIS: I don't think they've moved on at all. I think that it's more
of the same. Nothing has changed. I don't think that multinational
corporations, in fact, can change, because they're only interested in one
thing, which is making profits for their shareholders. And really, things
are going to change. It will be because people, wherever they live, wherever
they work, get organized and stand up for their rights and speak out, and
really try to create a different kind of society, based on people's needs
rather than, you know, the power of multinationals and governments.

AMY GOODMAN: David Morris, Helen Steel, thanks for joining us from Britain.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for
our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359.