These are the 2 Early Day Motions (as reported by Hansard)
McDONALD'S
AND CENSORSHIP
DATED:25/5/94
Sponsored by:
Mr Jeremy Corbyn
That this House notes with alarm that, while the McDonald's Hamburger Corporation
suppresses criticism by frequent recourse to libel writs it spends $1 billion
dollars annually on advertising and promoting junk food whilst also making
grandiose hypocritical and sometimes false claims about its 'concern' over
environmental and social matters notes that McDonald's causes environmental
damage and social problems by producing mountains of unnecessary packaging.
not recycled after use, by promoting the type of food and diet linked to
tooth decay (sugar), children's hyperactivity (E number additives), heart
disease, obesity diabetes and cancer (high levels of fat, sugar and salt,
low levels of fibre and vitamins and food poisoning (meat), by relying on
cattle ranching, some of which is on ex-rainforest land, and methane emissions
which are a major cause of global warming, by employing advertising techniques
exploiting children, by exploiting workers with low pay, poor conditions,
authoritarian management and opposition to trades unions and by being responsible
for the unnecessary and cruel deaths of billions of animals; and notes that
the company has misled the public or lied about their use of ex-rainforest
land beef, chemicals in their food, lack of recycling of packaging and poor
nutritional quality of their food.
McDONALD'S
AND CENSORSHIP
DATED:26/5/94
Sponsored by:
Mr Jeremy Corbyn
That this House opposes the routine use of libel writs as a form of censorship
particularly by US multinationals taking advantage of the United Kingdom's
more repressive libel laws; notes that McDonald's has threatened or initiated
libel actions against numerous organisations including the BBC -Channel
4 The Guardian Today, Scottish TUC; green, vegetarian and labour movement
groups and individuals; notes that apologise and damages have been obtained
under false pretences after McDonald's lied about their practices e.g. by
denying using beef reared on ex-rainforest land; believes that as McDonald's
spends over $1 billion annually on advertising and promotions it should
expect public criticism and should not seek to suppress it; further notes
that the House of Lords recently ruled that in the interests of freedom
of speech 'governmental' bodies' would not be allowed to sue their critics
for libel,' and believes that this ruling should logically be extended to
cover immensely powerful, wealthy and influential multinational corporation
.