Big Mac Attack

[Guest guest]

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1747615.php

 

Big Mac Attack

by The Indypendent Wednesday, Jun. 15, 2005 at 1:36 PM

 

Interview with Dave Steel and Helen Steel, subject of the new

documentary McLibel, from NYC Indymedia's biweeklyn newspaper.

 

Taking advantage of British libel laws that put the burden of proof on

the defendant, McDonald's UK got in the habit of suing its critics,

from newspapers to activists, into submission. But two members of

London Greenpeace sued in 1990 for their leaflet " What's Wrong With

McDonald's? " —detailing the environmental, health and labor

practices

of the corporation—refused to apologize or back away from their

claims. In the longest court case in British history, Dave Morris, an

ex-postal worker and single father, and Helen Steel, a part-time

bartender, put McDonald's on public trial for its anti-social

behavior. Representing themselves, backed only by a volunteer support

team and individual donations, the duo faced down a team of high-paid

corporate lawyers. In the process, they served as a catalyst for

opposition to McDonald's and multinational corporations.

 

In 2000, ten years after the initial suit, they took the entire

British legal system to the European Court of Human Rights, which

unanimously found in 2005 that their rights to a fair trial and

freedom of expression had been violated. The Indypendent spoke with

Dave and Helen via email on the eve of the release of the film

McLibel, which documents their odyssey.

 

 

 

Q: When you decided to stand trial did you have any idea it could

serve to expose McDonald's health, environmental, labor and marketing

practices to the broader public?

 

 

A: When we originally put together the leaflet, it was our intention

to bring attention to McDonald's practices but at a local level. Once

the trial started, the case really seemed to connect with people and

grew into this international phenomenon. Our goal has been to point

out that behind the image of the smiling face of Ronald McDonald lies

the reality - McDonald's is only interested in making profits.

 

In the years since the trial finished McDonald's profits have dropped,

at least partly due to the increasing public awareness of the

unhealthy nature of junk food and increased risks of obesity, heart

disease and cancer as a result of this type of diet. McDonald's have

introduced so-called `healthy' options to their menus, but rather than

this being through their concern for the public's health, it is merely

an attempt to capture customers who wouldn't eat their usual fare.

 

The reality is that McDonald's trumpets every minor change and use it

as an opportunity for PR and greenwash, but fundamentally the whole

system remains the same.

 

 

Q: In some ways, your trial and the broader campaign against McDonalds

seems like a precursor of the protests held by the anti-corporate

globalization movement in Seattle and beyond, with both using protests

against high-profile targets as a way to raise a number of issues.

What do you think the link between the two is, if any?

 

 

A: There are definitely parallels between what activists in Seattle

sought to achieve by bringing the multi-national corporations under

the glare of the media and what we hope to achieve every year on the

16th of October - which has been established as the World Day of

Action against McDonald's - with pickets and demonstrations all over

the world.

 

People are increasingly aware of the need to think seriously about the

food we and our children eat. Environmental and animal rights protests

and campaigns are growing everywhere. People in poor countries are

organising themselves to stand up to multinationals and banks which

dominate the world's economy. Why not join the struggle for a better

world?

 

We would always encourage people to stand up to bullies -whether

corporations, governments, police or whatever - and refuse to be

intimidated by legal or other threats. But it's essential to get

organised, to refuse to be marginalised or criminalised, and to

constantly engage with wider opposition movements and the public in

general. Any movements for change can expect to have to resist and

overcome repression. We need to work out how best to transform court

cases into arenas around which public debate and struggles can be

stimulated and mobilised. `Natural justice' and `civil society' may be

much stronger than we all realise. The rulings of supposedly powerful

legal, state and corporate institutions can be successfully opposed.

 

 

Q: What do you think will be the effects of your trial(s) on the

free-speech rights of activists in England?

 

 

A: Although we won the case in Europe the ruling actually fudged most

of the issues we had argued, and as a result may not have that much

impact on freedom of speech. What has had and will have a far greater

impact is the mass defiance campaign which has shown that oppressive

laws can be rendered unworkable if people defy them.

 

Two days after the Judge had given his mixed ruling in 1997, and

ordered us to pay McDonald's damages, protests took place at over 500

UK stores and elsewhere around the world. Around 3 million leaflets

had been distributed in the UK alone since the writs were served. This

showed McDonald's that it was futile to attempt to use the legal

system to silence people, and they then abandoned their original claim

for costs and an injunction to prevent leafleting. They have also

never attempted to enforce the damages.

 

Overall the case spectacularly backfired for McDonald's. They had

issued legal proceedings as part of a long-running and largely

successful strategy of legal threats to their critics. Instead, this

time the campaign had turned the tables and put the company on trial -

all their business practices received massive scrutiny during the

trial, and the leafleting mushroomed. They haven't issued libel writs

in the UK since, and also other companies have been warned not to 'do

a McLibel'.