www.pressureworks.org/frontline/opinion/righton/davemorris.html

Background

In 1990, Dave Morris and his fellow campaigner Helen Steel received a libel writ from McDonalds over a leaflet being handed out in the street by London Greenpeace. The leaflet listed ‘hidden facts’ about McDonalds that they believed the public should know - criticising the effects of the fast food chain on the human body, the environment, animal welfare, and the company’s employees.

McDonalds expected a quick apology in court as many others including the BBC and Sunday Times had done previously. Instead, this time, they were in for a fifteen year fight driven by two campaigners who although penniless, were not ready to submit to what they called the ‘intimidation tactics’ of the multinational corporation.

Despite being advised that libel laws are stacked in favour of the rich and powerful, Helen (a gardener) and Dave (a single parent, and ex-postman) decided to fight the case and stand up for the public interest against the might of the global corporation. The McLibel Support Campaign was set up, and international publicity, protests and leafleting mushroomed. The reality of McDonald’s was at last being exposed and publicly debated.

McDonalds ended up spending over 10 million pounds. Dave and Helen, who were denied legal aid, raised 35 thousand pounds through worldwide support and took them on.

After a succession of witnesses, expert testimony, legal arguments, secret meetings with members of McDonald’s Board of Directors and a whole range of controversies in what became the longest trial in English history, the courts ruled that McDonald's marketing "pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match" and that "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease."; that they "exploit children" with their advertising; are "culpably responsible for animal cruelty"; and "pay low wages, helping to depress wages in the catering trade."

However the Courts also ruled that the McLibel 2 had still libelled McDonald's over some points they’d failed to win and, despite the damning judgments, ordered the defendants to pay £40,000 damages to the $35 billion-dollar company!

Immediately after the trial verdict was announced, Steel and Morris held a press conference announcing that they would rather go to jail than pay a penny to McDonalds. Publicity and protests surrounding the trial amounted to a PR disaster for the fast food giant. Not only did they back off from collecting their libel award, they decided not to press forward with an injunction against further leafleting in front of their stores. 2 days after the verdict over 450,000 leaflets were distributed outside McDonald’s stores in the UK, and many more were handed out all around the world.

On September 20, 2000 Steel and Morris launched their own case against the British government in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the McLibel trial and British libel laws violated the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 10 (Right to Freedom of Expression).

The Mclibel Two were triumphant on February 15th of this year, when they received notification that the European Court had decided in their favor.

Pressureworks spoke to Dave Morris at his flat in London.

Q. Why did you choose McDonalds?

In the mid 1980s Helen and I were involved in London Greenpeace - an independent group which brought together the criticisms made of McDonalds by a whole range of different movements, using the company as a symbol of an entire economic system, a way of life.

McDonalds was focused upon not only because it was powerful and influential corporation but because it was pioneering business practices that were being adopted by other companies.

London Greenpeace brought those diverse criticisms together - from the Labour movement, animal welfare campaigners, environmentalists, and health and nutrition experts - to create a jigsaw to show the reality of the effects of a corporation and these types of business practices on all our lives.

Q. What initial steps did you take?

A team of people involved with London Greenpeace created ‘What’s Wrong With McDonald’s?’ leaflets that listed this combined information, and started handing them out outside McDonalds.

They went down a storm: people were crying out for an alternative point of view to challenge the billions of pounds that companies spend on their sophisticated marketing campaigns. They hope to brainwash the public into thinking that they are positive or benevolent organizations.

Of course while the public were pleased, McDonalds were less than happy. They took legal action against dozens of organizations at that time - across the board almost anyone who was critical of them - to try and silence them.

Eventually London Greenpeace activists were threatened with a court case and that was the beginning of the fight back.

Q. Why did you personally decide to fight this battle?

Helen and I decided we had to stand up for the public’s right to criticize. McDonalds were trying to create a climate of fear - it was essential we had to stand up to them.

We felt it was important to stand up to bullies, and that is what they were. There are many kinds of bullies in our world - mostly institutional: governments, corporations, armies, rich and powerful people, who believe that they can dominate the world, force their views on us all and push aside their critics. So when we decided to fight the case we knew that we would have to mobilize public opinion and also build up a strong support campaign, particularly focusing on defiance and a determination to continue to hand out leaflets against the company.

And the results spoke for themselves - when London Greenpeace first began distributing, the leaflets were being handed out in their thousands... by the end of the campaign it was in millions, in dozens of different languages.

Q. As fights go, it was a very long one. Did you ever think about giving up?

We were advised that the laws were stacked in favour of the rich and powerful, that we would be lucky to even get to trial. We thought firstly that we had to stand up for what we believed in. Secondly, the longer it went on, the stronger the campaign, the more publicity there would be. So it was an 'emperor’s new clothes' situation. Everyone knows the reality of McDonalds is the opposite of the image that they portray of themselves. The longer our campaign continued, the more the truth about them would be exposed to everyone.

It was a very hard battle though, because of the legal obstacles in our way. Effectively we turned the tables and put them on trial in front of the world. It wasn’t easy and it wasn’t just Helen and I who were doing this - we were part of a collective, a team of many people. Experts of all kinds, campaigners and ex-employees all came forward to be witnesses, others helped us in court, helped me at home with childcare, and sent in money and messages of support. And the McLibel campaign organized numerous international days of action, protests outside court, media publicity and fundraising etc.

McSpotlight, a pioneering website, was set up as a library of information for the public, campaigners, journalists etc to communicate everything about McDonald’s, the case and the campaign. It was one of the first and probably the largest and most comprehensive anti-corporate websites. It was a combined effort, and people were sending us information from all over the world.

McDonalds spent about £10 million on the court case. We raised 35 thousand pounds. Once the bandwagon started rolling the truth was too powerful for McDonalds to suppress. As the case continued it was clear however unfair the legal system was, that the truth would out.

Q. Did you have to make a personal sacrifice?

It was hard work but people do hard work all over the world - if you are a miner, a farmer, a mother, you work hard. I’m a single parent also so I was dealing with that. But the truth is, although it was hard and stressful, it was also a very empowering experience. I learned a lot about how corporations work and I was able to challenge them directly face to face in the court room. For the first time in history a corporation was on trial in a public tribunal for its business practices and could not hide behind their public PR. This time they couldn’t escape from us. They couldn’t leave the witness box till we had finished our questioning. In fact we were having a lot of success with cross-examining McDonald’s experts and execs etc, getting all kinds of previously suppressed information, admissions and some idiotic and ludicrous testimony as they tried to avoid accepting our case. That spurred us on!

Q. What kept you strong, able to continue fighting against all odds?

Being part of a collective campaign, a movement. Although the focus has been on me and Helen, it is important to remember that we were two members of a wider movement that has continued to grow. People are looking for alternative ways to live their lives, and taking back the power that has been stolen from us by governments and corporations. That sense of community was very empowering for us, as was the fact that almost everyone we met seemed to be rooting for us.

Q. What are the wider implications of the case?

The McLibel campaign was one of the pillars of the modern global anti-capitalist movement. We now see massive protests against the G8, the IMF and World Bank and so on - this exciting upsurge of global protest against the most powerful organizations didn’t come from nowhere. It has roots that go back 10 - 20 years, through the patient day to day local work, regional and international work of specific struggles and movements. The McLibel campaign is one of these.

Q. Where is the fight at now? Are you still involved?

Ironically my focus has always been on my local community. So getting involved in the court case was a kind of sidetrack - but a golden opportunity that couldn’t be missed. I’m now back involved in local activities.

I think two things are important: that people question the forces that control the world’s resources and decision making; and secondly that we stand up for our own interests - that is why we took on McDonalds. The relationship between being in a court-room for over 10 years and being a local community activist is the same for me - questioning what is going on, standing up for our own needs as people, as communities, to create a real alternative.

There is no reason why the world should be run by corporations and governments.They’ve created a horrible mess of it. What Helen and I believe, as anarchists, is that workers should run their own workplaces, residents should control their own neighbourhoods, and that corporations and governments should be abolished... and that we need to take responsibility for our own lives and planet.

Q. What are you doing locally?

I’m part of my local residents association, and the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations in North London. We take up issues like improving green spaces, trying to create more traffic calming and safer streets, opposing unwanted development and encouraging community spirit. We motivate people to organize together to demand that their needs take priority in their neighbourhood and London as a whole. It is something we can all do, wherever we are.

Q. Do you have any regrets?

My only regret is that McDonalds still exists. That may sound flippant, but our struggle was to raise awareness about the fast food industry. Now there is a greater interest and a shift in society. People are concerned about their environment, about health, about corporations, about Africa and poverty, but if we really want to change things it is a long struggle to create strong opposition and real alternatives. I have no regrets but I’m aware that the battle of ideas is the first step towards creating a movement throughout the world where people take control themselves.

Q. What would you say was your greatest achievement?

It has been said before, but the struggle is the victory. OK in many ways we won the battle but more importantly, the campaign has hopefully inspired all sorts of people who heard about it to take action themselves.

Q. Have you had an element of personal victory?

That’s a difficult question. My instinct is, really, no, I don’t think this is about egos or personal disputes - it is about all of us doing the best we can.

Q. But to get involved doesn’t it take a personal involvement? To feel the passion to do something?

Often our everyday lives put us into situations that bring out the best in us, from standing up to your boss, to raising 5 kids on your own, or to fighting daily poverty. And I suppose I felt a personal obligation to stretch myself just as anyone else would have when faced with such an important challenge in their own lives. So much seemed to hang on this battle with McDonalds.

Q. What advice would you give to someone who, for whatever reasons, is finding it difficult to take the first step - to get involved?

Together we can achieve anything. There are billions of ordinary people around the world. If we organized ourselves together street by street, workplace by workplace we could create a real alternative to the way the world is run at the moment. I’m talking about a collective movement, where every individual counts, not about leaders and followers but where we are all in it together. It is important to do our best, get involved and think for ourselves, to campaign and struggle for a better world.

Humanity deserves a better society than the one we’ve got - we’ve earned it a thousand times over. We need to work on getting rid of oppression and powerlessness so that we can get on with living in a society that enables everyone to have the best possible life.  
 
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