www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1301204,00.html

Defending McLibel
Friday September 10 2004
The Guardian

[From the McLibel Applicants - unamended version]

If Miranda Sawyer (McLibel finally gets interesting 8/9/04), when observing McLibel, had thought about the issues in the case rather than our clothing and haircuts - the focus of a report by her at the time - she might have realised that actually we'd been arguing since the case started that multinationals should not have the right to sue for libel.

This isn't a new issue raised suddenly by our lawyers which has turned McLibel into something interesting. Likewise the criticisms of McDonald's as 'capitalist piggery'. Such views, rather than suddenly 'crystallising' the No Logo debate, were actually included in the 1986 leaflet we were defending. This argued that the problems listed with McDonald's were a result of the nature of capitalism - a society based on profits rather than people's needs.

And yes, legal proceedings can be tedious, but the reason Ms Steel missed a couple of days of the Court case was based not on boredom, but on the fact that although her doctor certified that she was suffering from stress and exhaustion, the court nevertheless refused to adjourn the trial.

Although we were most definately struggling under the volume of paperwork in the case (over 40,000 pages of documents) and our relative inexperience in libel proceedings, the tendency of some journalists to inaccurately and offensively portray us as virtual incompetents in court must have left the public perplexed when we actually won four major damning judgments against McDonald’s at the end of the trial and a further two on appeal.

Helen Steel and Dave Morris
McLibel Applicants
Tottenham, North London

Letters, Daily Telegraph

Legal Aid Was Warranted To Take On Big Mac
Date:September 2004

[From the McLibel Applicants - unamended version]

You reported the Government's false assertion in the European Court of Human Rights (McLibel 8/9/04) that we had demanded £10 million in legal aid for our defence against McDonald's. At no time have we made any such claim. Instead our case is that the denial of legal aid made a fair trial impossible given the massive imbalance in resources between the two parties (McDonald's spent approx £10m on their case, we raised about £35,000). This left us fighting the case with almost no legal back up - a virtually impossible feat with 40,000 pages of documents and 130 witnesses in the longest trial in English legal history.

We also argued that instead of the requirement to provide first hand live witness evidence to support criticisms made, a defence of ‘reasonable belief’ should be allowed. This would enable the public to rely on previously published material such as World Health Organisation reports which detail the links between high fat, low fibre diets and chronic diseases.

We further argued that multinational corporations should not have the right to sue for libel, in common with the restriction placed on governmental bodies, in order to allow free debate on matters of public interest. This is particularly important given the massive advertising budgets of corporations and their power and influence in society.

Such protection for freedom of expression far from costing the government money, should result in a considerable saving - by preventing the courts from being clogged up by multinational corporations which choose to sue in the UK courts because of our notoriously repressive libel laws.

Helen Steel and Dave Morris
McLibel Applicants
Tottenham, North London

 
 
related links  
 
- press cuttings: McDonald's
- press cuttings: McLibel
- press cuttings: Campaigns
- press cuttings: McLibel film
- press cuttings: related stuff
- press releases & statements
- photo album, cartoons, subvertisements
- interviews, books, plays, reports
- witnesses statements, transcripts, evidence