Guest guest Posted March 16, 2002 Report Share Posted March 16, 2002 - Capybara chocoholic <ronny.garlicbuggaspam Newsgroups: alt.food.vegan Sunday, March 10, 2002 3:15 PM McLibel Legal Update > McLibel Legal Update > > Case Against the British Government Is Still Before the > European Court of Human Rights > > As you may know, on 20th September 2000 Helen Steel and Dave > Morris - the McLibel 2 - lodged an application to take the U.K. > Government to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. > Helen and Dave, the two defendants in the longest trial in > English legal history, assert that the McLibel trial breached, in > particular, Article 6 [right to a fair trial] and Article 10 > [right to freedom of expression] of the Human Rights Convention, > and that English libel laws are incompatible with the convention. > > On 2nd April 2001 they submitted their full written > Application, a 173 page document. [see > www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/Echr.html.] > > Their case is currently before the Court, and they are are > now awaiting a decision on the admissability of their claim. They > have been waiting an unusually long time for a response. On > August 29th 2001 they requested their case be expedited (speeded > up) in the light of the Court's decision to admit the case of > John McVicar v. The United Kingdom. That case has some > similarities to the McLibel case, being a libel case which > involved the denial of legal aid, and the burden of proof being > on the defence. > > Should the Court find that the Steel and Morris v. The United > Kingdom application is admissable, the British Government would > be invited to respond to defend its defamation laws. > > The McLibel 2 are seeking to defend the public's right to > criticise companies whose business practices affect people's > lives, health and the environment. They also seek an end to > oppressive, unfair and archaic defamation laws and procedures in > general, and in their case in particular. The main arguments in > Europe cover breaches of Articles 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13. For > example: a. Multinational corporations, should have no right to > sue for libel as it is in the overriding public interest that > they be subjected to unfettered scrutiny and criticism (as > currently applies to criticism of governmental organisations) > since they have huge power and influence. > > b. If there be a right to sue, it should be a defence for a > defendant to show 'reasonable belief' in the words complained of, > or that the issues are of public importance. c. The McLibel case > was unfair or an abuse of legal process due to several factors - > for example: the denial of legal aid and the inequality of > financial and legal resources as between the two sides; and the > burden of proof being on the defence, rather than on the claimant > as is usual in most other areas of law. > > The full Application is now available on the McSpotlight > website. Please note that there may be some discrepancy in the > page numbering in the index, which relates to the hard copy as > sent to the ECHR. > > The McLibel Support Campaign > > contact details > > McLibel Support Campaign > > 5 Caledonian Road, London, N1 9DX, UK. > > Tel/Fax: +44 (207) 713 1269 > > E-mail: mclibel > > Web: http://www.mcspotlight.org > > > ___ > > > ---- the McLibel mailing list ---- > > McDonald's, McLibel, multinationals > http://www.mcspotlight.org > > > -- > Please remove 'buggaspam' to reply. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.