By Lisa Young
LONDON — The longest trial in English history came to an end on June 19. It centred on the distribution of a six-page fact sheet, titled "What's Wrong With McDonald's — Everything They Don't Want You To Know", produced by London Greenpeace (not connected to Greenpeace International).
Despite the awarding of £120,000 damages against them, defendants Dave Morris and Helen Steel feel that they emerged victorious.
Even though they were denied a jury and had to defend themselves against the giant corporation without legal aid, the "McLibel" defendants refused to be silenced.
"By standing up to the company's intimidation", they say, "we turned the tables on McDonald's. The company found that all its dirty laundry was aired in public during the trial, exposing the truth behind its glossy image."
It was a PR nightmare for McDonald's. Two million copies of the leaflet "What's wrong with McDonald's" (an abridged version of the fact sheet) were distributed. The McSpotlight web site was accessed 13 million times, with half a million hits on the day of the verdict.
In his verdict, Mr Justice Bell agreed that McDonald's exploits children through its advertising and promotions, is responsible for cruelty to animals, pays low wages to its workers in Britain and is anti-union.
The judge also said that McDonald's promotion of its food as nutritious is deceptive.
"We were completely elated by the findings of guilt against McDonald's", Morris told Green Left. "Particularly significant is the one on nutrition, which goes to the very core of the company's business."
Those rulings that McDonald's did win were mainly on technicalities, such as the definition of a rainforest, and the fact that strict libel laws required the defendants to prove the statements in the fact sheet, rather than McDonald's having to prove them false.
Both Steel and Morris have stated that they will not pay the damages, because neither of them have the money and "McDonald's don't deserve a penny. We want to know what sanctions are going to be carried out against McDonald's for their unethical and oppressive business activities."
Morris and Steel lost a libel counter-claim against McDonald's. The judge found that Morris and Steel had been libelled, and he ruled that McDonald's was motivated by express malice, but that this was not its dominant motive.
Since its dominant motive was to defend itself, the libel was protected by "qualified privilege in the form of the right to reply to an attack". In other words, it was permissible for McDonald's to spread lies about the defendants because it was acting in self-defence.
Morris and Steel still have a lot of unfinished business with McDonald's. They plan an appeal to the Court of Appeals and then possibly all the way to the House of Lords.
After they have exhausted all avenues in England, they plan to take the British government to the European courts to end the right of multinationals to sue for libel.
They also plan to claim breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Morris and Steel have been made responsible for the publication and distribution of the leaflet by other people involved with London Greenpeace. This is a breach of freedom of association.
As Dan Mills from the McLibel Support Campaign states, "People shouldn't fear getting involved and joining groups on the basis that they're going to be responsible for the actions of other people within that group".
Throughout the trial, Morris and Steel received tremendous support from nutritionists, environmentalists, animal welfare groups and workers.
Two hundred trade union councils and branches sent support and donations, passed resolutions and spread information.
"The support campaign is not a campaign to support me and Helen", says Morris. "It's a campaign to support the tens of thousands of activists around the world within the labour movement, green organisations etc who are the basis of a real challenge to McDonald's business practices."