McLibel day is nigh
Robert Allen anticipates the verdict in a junk food giant's case
against two environmental activists
The British judicial system is about to make its ruling on the
libel action which McDonalds, the global junk food corporation,
took against David Morris and Helen Steel, two anarchists
involved in London Greenpeace.
In what is being seen as a classic corporate own-goal McDonalds
methods of production, environmental care and health, labour and
safety procedures were examined in depth during the
record-breaking 313 day hearing.
What became apparent fairly quickly was the pedantic nature of
Justice Bell and the arrogance of the junk food chain's counsel.
McDonalds argued that the land used to rear cattle from which to
make burgers was not rainforest. The judge, Justice Bell, sought
the definition of rainforest and relied on the Oxford dictionary
- which lists eco-terrorist but for some strange reason can't
find room for eco-anarchist or eco-feminist or eco-warrior. So if
it's not rainforest it doesn't matter. Why should the ruling
elites worry about forests and habitats and waterways that have
no corporate value?
Throughout the court case this attitude was prevalent. Only
McDonalds view of the world was the right one. You also suspected
that Justice Bell was more in sympathy with that view than the
one epoused by the two London Greenpeace campaigners and all
those - including former workers - who spoke against the junk
food corporate.
What Morris and Steel did was remarkable. Denied legal aid and a
jury trial they conducted their own defence against the might of
McDonalds legal team. Attempts by McDonalds senior counsel to
characterise Morris as a power freak would have been ironic if
the lawyer had not been representing a company that has stores in
24 counties and returns $30 billion annual profits.
Because Morris and Steel are different, because Greenpeace London
has a eco-centred world view, because they were the voices of the
many who oppose corporate capitalism and want to stamp it out, it
was easy for McDonalds counsel to try and ridicule them, to
debase their arguments and portray them as enemies of society.
Biologist David Ehrenfeld springs to mind here. In his 1993 book
Beginning Again: People and Nature in the New Millennium he
wrote: ``Until science and society regain a fascination with
diversity, with differences, with uniqueness, and with
exceptions, all in their own right, there will continue to
be...new and faster methods of cutting down tropical forests,
there will continue to be an accelerating loss of species and
communities, despite all the science, land and money that
conservation can muster.''
It is unlikely that Justice Bell has read the works of people
like Ehrenfeld or even knows about the research of Robert
Costanza and a dozen of his colleagues. Costanza, who directs the
Institute of Ecological Economics at the University of Maryland
at Solomons, recently published research on the value of global
ecosystems, estimating that 17 of the Earth's ecosystems are
worth $33 trillion a year. By comparison, the current total GNP
of the world's nations is roughly $18 trillion. ``This,'' said
Costanza, ``is enough of an answer to lead us to want to put a lot
more effort into studying and valuing ecosystem services.''
Morris and Steel believe people can do this, if given truthful
information and the opportunity. ``Having been denied a jury
trial, we believe that the world's public are in effect the wider
jury. Campaigners are providing a valuable public service in
ensuring that people everywhere continue to hear an alternative
point of view to that put out by McDonalds, and therefore are
able to judge for themselves. The Corporation spends $2 billion
each year on advertising and promotions - our trial has shown the
huge contrast between their glossy image and the reality.
Whatever the verdict, the need to scrutinise and challenge
multinationals has never before been greater and so the campaign
is certain to continue to grow.''
Justice Bell, no doubt, may privately decide this is outside his
legislative perimeters and rule in favour of the corporate giant.
The full judgement is expected to be about 1000 pages long,
covering the corporation's claim, the defendants' counterclaim
and any damages. The ruling on any costs and injunction will be
given at a later date.
Whatever Bell's decision, expect thousands of protests against
McDonalds outside and maybe inside their stores this Saturday.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)