Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: McLibel - yay!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
whoop, whoop! flings hat into the air!

steel and morris say yah boo sucks to the libel laws! they won! huzzah! so ner to you, McBastards! cos we all know it's not just a matter of changing the libel laws, don't we...? protecting the "reputation" of McArseholes, when they destroy huge swathes of the planet, encourage people to eat shite and have very dodgy working conditions. yeah, right

morgaine does double back somersault in delight!
Got a link?
Well actually, I think all they won was compensation because they didn't receive legal aid when they should have done according to European Law. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have been found guilty of libel if they had had access to that aid.

Anyway, perhaps you could expand on your dislike of McDonalds, I would like to be enlightened as regards the malpractices of this global empire. Or, is it simply that large American corporations are inherently evil?
Nah, people are jut inherently evil.  No curing it.  Give them lots of money, and they all turn into little Saddams.
If McDonald's and their ilk were really destroying the rainforests, one would expect Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and WWF to be calling upon their supporters to boycott burgers. Instead - complete silence on this matter from the world's leading environmental NGOs. Of course it could be that the rainforest-destruction claim was unfounded in the first place. Still, why let the facts get in the way of a brilliant vegetarian polemic? :roll:

Not that I unquestionably accept everything the big green organisations have to say - after all, Greenpeace were wrong about Brent Spar nearly 10 years ago, and they admitted as much at the time. Also I find the attention they devote to the anti-GM cause is IMVHO disproportionate. I once rang Greenpeace to order a publication they'd recently commissioned about the potential for renewable energy in Europe, and I got through to a recorded message: "Welcome to Greenpeace. For our anti-GM foods campaign, please press 1. For all other enquiries, please press 2." :!:

The trouble is, it's so much easier to campaign against something (fast-food chains, dumping oil rigs in the sea, GM crops...) than to lobby for something positive (hemp plastics, solar panels, hydrogen-fuelled cars...)
I wonder if Greenpeace and others had steered clear of commenting on McDonalds because of the libel case, fearing a trip to court too.
When the McLibel trial was ongoing (back in the mid-to-late '90s) I once saw a leaflet produced on behalf of the Two which claimed they'd been vindicated on many points, including the issue of rainforest destruction. But the only "evidence" they gave for this in court was that McDonald's had, in the 1960s, supplied their American restaurants with beef sourced from Costa Rican ranches which were built on land that had been covered with rainforest ten years previously. This is a long way from saying that McD wielded the chainsaw themselves. And it says nothing about beef supplied to restaurants elsewhere in the world at the time the offending pamphlet was published.

Moreover, I have spoken to people who have visited Argentina (my mother during her Diplomatic Service posting in Brazil for one). They tell me that there are masses of cattle ranches but they are all in the central pampas (grassland) region - nowhere near the rainforest areas in the north of the country. In fact once rainforests have been cleared the soil is depleted of nutrients, so it's far from ideal for grazing cattle.

John Vidal's book McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial referred to a Channel 4 documentary called "Jungleburger" that is said to have provided some other evidence in support of the claim. I haven't seen it myself.

I've just sent a message to Friends of the Earth's enquiry line, asking about where they stand on this issue.
And here's FoE's reply:

Friends of the Earth Wrote:
Thank you for contacting us at the Information Service.

Charles Secrett (former Director of Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland) appeared as a witness for the defence in the original trial.  He treated with scepticism McDonald's assurance that they had not used meat imported from Central and Southern America up to 1986.  This was simply because his analysis of the manner in which meat was sourced and distributed to the fast-food sector could not support such a guarantee:
http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/witnes...arles.html

For further comment, see:
http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/interv...crett.html

On the point of a boycott, this is something that is very rarely used by us.  There are a great many products that are causing environmental destruction of one sort or another and we do not believe it is possible for consumer to regulate the markets.  Certainly relevant campaigns now are focused on legislation that would tackle a much broader goal - placing responsibility for corporate accountability and reducing environmental and social impacts directly on company directors.  For more information on these, please see:
http://corporate-responsibility.org/
http://www.foei.org/publications/corpora...ility.html

McDonald's is 50 years old this Friday!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,...36,00.html
April 11, 2005

Just why do we demonise McDonald's with such relish?
Richard Morrison


BRACE yourself for a shock. You are about to read the most controversial sentence of the year. Indeed, I doubt whether I will get as far as typing the full-stop before I am hurled to the ground and gagged by a snatch-squad of eco-warriors, vegans and Guardian columnists. But here goes. The awful truth is, I feel sorry for McDonald’s.

Ouch! Get off my face right now, Polly Toynbee, and let me explain.

In the entire sizzling history of the hamburger, no date is more significant than April 15, 1955. Yes, it was 50 years ago this week, in a small town in Illinois, that a man called Ray Kroc opened the restaurant that changed Western civilisation. Its road-sign was two golden arches. It sold the fastest fast-food known to Fifties Man. And its name was not Kroc’s, but McDonald’s. Why? Because Kroc, a salesman who had sunk his last dime in a milkshake machine, had persuaded two hamburger-cooking brothers called McDonald to let him in on the saucy secrets of their succulent buns.

Genius comes in two sorts. One makes connections that elude others because they are so complex. The other makes connections that elude others because they are so simple. Kroc was of the latter variety. He was an ordinary guy. He had an ordinary ambition. He would cook burgers for other ordinary guys. But to that task he applied extraordinary energy. He would make burgers quicker, cheaper, more efficiently than anyone else on earth. His outlets would gleam brighter. His staff would work harder. His shakes would be sweeter, fries saltier, relishes tangier, colas fizzier, grins broader.

And, basically, that was it. The secret formula for a global empire. A formula which, within 30 years, would attract 150 million customers a day.

In a more trusting age this achievement would elicit admiration. After all, McDonald’s feeds families who can’t afford to eat out anywhere else. It provides jobs for kids who can’t get work anywhere else. And yes, it has made super-size profits, but at least some of those riches have been ploughed back into the welfare of ordinary people. When Kroc’s widow died last year she left no less than $1.5 billion to the Salvation Army.

Yet in the eyes of McDonald’s vast army of enemies, none of this adds up to a hill of gherkins. Why? Because the ubiquitous golden M has come to symbolise something far more sinister than a burger chain. To liberal Europe it stands for American cultural imperialism at its most coercive. To anti-capitalists it epitomises the frightful power of the multinationals. To trade-unionists it represents autocratic managers riding roughshod over cowed workers. To environmentalists it means the wanton destruction of natural resources and reckless production of more and more garbage.

To animal-welfare campaigners it signifies all that is vilest about slaughterhouse farming. And to nutritionists, their prescriptive tendencies encouraged by the current media panic about obesity, it offers an irresistible target for wrath and heavy-handed satires such as Super Size Me.

The result? McDonald’s has become our favourite corporate scapegoat. Yes, the company will get a lot of publicity in the run-up to its 50th anniversary. But not for celebratory reasons. What will capture the headlines is the release of McLibel — a shamelessly partisan, if entertaining, film that chronicles the stupendous 314-day libel proceedings (the longest court case in English history) that McDonald’s brought against two British environmental campaigners who dared to suggest that not all of its methods were of angelic perfection. The film, to be shown on BBC Four on Wednesday, follows the battle to its climax two months ago, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the campaigners had been prevented by the legal system from arguing their case on a level playing-field.

So McDonald’s is again painted as a brute monster hellbent on global domination but given a satisfying bloody nose by two plucky individuals. “Who said ordinary people can’t change the world?” McLibel’s director, Franny Armstrong, asks rhetorically — referring to the two heroes.

The irony, of course, is that McDonald’s itself was created by ordinary people who changed the world. Now, though, the world has changed again. The food vigilantes have taken charge. And try as McDonald’s might — with its desperate Damascene conversion to salads, yoghurts, herbal teas and low-carb sandwiches — it can’t appease its enemies at this 11th hour. Its fate is fixed. It’s the big bad wolf that must be slain before it destroys our children ’s health. And to hell with consumer choice.

Well, so be it. But if we really wanted to stop teenagers getting fat, we would make them walk to school, wean them off watching four hours of telly a night, and stop selling off playing-fields. To do that, however, would require an unprecedented display of parental willpower from the public and courage from politicians. Far easier to blame our social ills on a burger chain, just because it’s naff, American, and very slick at what it does.
Reference URL's