McDonald's "prevale" nel lungo caso di diffamazione "McLibel"
ma il giudice riconosce la fondatezza delle critiche su:
sfruttamento dei bambini tramite la pubblicità, sfruttamento dei lavoratori
con paghe bassissime ed avversione verso i sindacati, sofferenza e torture per gli animali,
alla fine gli avvocati della multinazionale lamentano una
vittoria insignificante viste le conferme date anche in corte
agli attivisti ed alla loro campagna oramai irrefrenabile.
Un giudice inglese ha determinato che nell'opuscolo intitolato "Che cosa c'e' di sbagliato in McDonald's; tutto quello che non vogliono farti sapere" la corporation americana e' stata in alcuni punti diffamata, mentre in altri le critiche che gli erano state rivolte anche dopo questo processo, il piu' lungo della storia dei processi civili inglesi, erano fondate!!!.
Ha perciò condannato i due attivisti di London Greenpeace (un gruppo anarco-pacifista che non ha niente a che vedere con Greenpeace International)
a pagare circa 150 milioni di lire alla Multinazionale degli Hamburger, cosa che difficilmente avverra' essendo i due attivisti due proletari, Helen Steel (31) fa la barista part-time e Dave Morris (43) faceva il postino ed e' attualmente disoccupato.
I punti dai quali il giudice ha motivato la sanzione sono questi :
non e' vera, per la corte, l'affermazione che McDonald's distrugge le foreste pluviali e sposta le piccole fattorie per dare spazio ai pascoli di bestiame nei paesi del Terzo Mondo. Il giudice ha anche messo tra le diffamazioni il fatto che il cibo di McDonald's era stato descritto come dannosso per la salute e che la multi mentiva sulle quantita' di materiale riciclato usato nelle confezioni.
MA IL GIUDICE HA ANCHE DICHIARATO CHE ALCUNE PARTI DELL'OPUSCOLO RISULTANO COMPROVATE
Ha ritenuto colpevole la McDonald's di crudelta' nel trattamento degli animali, incluso il lasciare i polli per tutta la vita in uno spazio piccolissimo e lasciarli ancora coscienti mentre sono fatti a pezzi.
Il giudice e' anche d'accordo sul fatto che la McDonald's sfrutta i bambini proponendo delle campagne pubblicitarie puntate sui bambini per far si che essi trascinino i genitori all'interno dei "ristoranti".
Il giudice ha anche detto di aver constato che anche se molti i manager della McDonald's detestano i sindacati non e' giusto dichiarare che McDonald's ha una politica loro ostile (?)Ha pero' constatato che la multinazionale paga stipendi bassissimi che hanno fatto abbassare tutta la media del settore ristorazione ed anche che minaccia i lavoratori piu' giovani o piu' deboli mentre abbassa loro la paga nei periodi di crisi.
In questi anni di processo McDonald's ha speso 16 milioni di dollari per lustrare il nome della compagnia contro le stringenti accuse ed il boicottaggio internazionale, ha ricevuto 98.000$ di danni :-))))
Gli accusati hanno parlato della grande soddisfazione della campagna mondiale contro McDonald's ed hanno affermato:"McDonald's non merita una lira, in ogni caso noi non abbiamo comunque soldi" i due attivisti spiccavano infatti per il loro look jeans e maglietta di fronte al viscido vestiario del team di legali della corporation.
Oltretutto Paul Preston e' stato sbeffeggiato dalla stampa per aver combinato questa causa con tanto di investigatori privati milioni di dollari buttati per ricevere poi questo verdetto che in fondo sancisce come veri e confermati alcuni capisaldi della Campagna anti McDonald's, e se questo lo afferma un membro della casta padronale quale un giudice, si vede che l'evidenza era innegabile. Tra l'altro il verdetto e la punizione per McDonal'ds hanno guadagnato le prime pagine di tutti i giornali di oggi da USA Today alla CNN.
Qui di seguito riportiamo la conferenza stampa tenuta da McLibel Support Campaign alla fine del processo.
For independent information on the case and McDonald's: http://www.McSpotlight.org/
Press Release 20th June 1997
SUBSTANTIAL & SIGNIFICANT PARTS
OF THE McLIBEL CASE
WON BY THE DEFENDANTS
Judge finds it to be a fact that McDonald's 'exploit children' through their
advertising and promotions, that McDonald's promotion of its food as
nutritious is deceptive, that McDonald's is 'culpably responsible' for
cruelty to animals, that McDonald's pays low wages to its workers in the
UK and is anti-union.
Mr Justice Bell yesterday ruled, in his personal verdict in the McLibel
Trial delivered at Britain's High Court, that substantial and significant
parts of the London Greenpeace Factsheet criticising the company have been
proved to be true by the evidence brought by the McLibel Defendants, Helen
Steel & Dave Morris.
There follows extracts from the official Summary of the Judgment by Mr
Justice Bell in the McLibel Trial which was yesterday read out in a
courtroom packed with journalists, supporters of the McLibel Defendants, and
McDonald's top executives and their lawyers. The full Summary (running to
45 pages) is available on the McSpotlight Internet site
(www.mcspotlight.org) and the full judgment (approx 1000 pages) will be
uploaded onto the site soon. The McLibel Support Campaign will be issuing a
Press Release on Monday 23rd June analysing in detail the judge's full
judgment, and reporting on Saturday's UK and global protests against the
company.
ADVERTISING (p 26)
[The criticism in] the leaflet to the effect that [McDonald's] exploit
children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to
pressurise their parents into going to McDonald's is justified. It is true.
In my judgment McDonald's advertising and marketing makes considerable use
of susceptible young children to bring in custom, both their own and that of
their parents who must accompany them, by pestering their parents.
McDONALD'S FOOD (pp 21 & 23)
At the material time of publication of the leaflet between September 1987,
and September 1990, McDonald's food was high in fat (including saturated
fat) and salt (sodium) and animal products and it has continued to be so.
I..find that various of [McDonald's] advertisements, promotions and booklets
have pretended to a postive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food, high
in fat and saturated fat and animal products and sodium, and at one time low
in fibre, did not match.
THE REARING AND SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (p 29)
[The criticism that McDonald's] are culpably responsible for cruel practices
in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to
produce their food is justified, true in substance and in fact.
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES (pp 33 & 37)
[McDonald's UK] does pay its workers low wages, thereby helping to depress
wages for workers in the catering trade in Britain.
[McDonald's] are stongly antipathetic to any idea of unionisation of crew in
their restaurants.
The Defendants were cheered by hundreds of people as they came out of court.
They believe that their stance in fighting the case has been vindicated;
that evidence in the trial has backed up all the criticisms made of
McDonald's over the promotion of unhealthy food, and exploitation of people,
animals and the environment; and that the campaign has become unstoppable.
SUBSTANTIAL & SIGNIFICANT PARTS
OF THE McLIBEL CASE
WON BY THE DEFENDANTS
Judge finds it to be a fact that McDonald's 'exploit children' through their advertising and promotions, that McDonald's promotion of its food as nutritious is deceptive, that McDonald's is 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, that McDonald's pays low wages to its workers in the UK and is anti-union.
Mr Justice Bell yesterday ruled, in his personal verdict in the McLibel Trial delivered at Britain's High Court, that substantial and significant parts of the London Greenpeace Factsheet criticising the company have been proved to be true by the evidence brought by the McLibel Defendants, Helen Steel & Dave Morris.
There follows extracts from the official Summary of the Judgment by Mr Justice Bell in the McLibel Trial which was yesterday read out in a courtroom packed with journalists, supporters of the McLibel Defendants, and McDonald's top executives and their lawyers. The full Summary (running to 45 pages) is available on the McSpotlight Internet site (www.mcspotlight.org) and the full judgment (approx 1000 pages) will be uploaded onto the site soon. The McLibel Support Campaign will be issuing a Press Release on Monday 23rd June analysing in detail the judge's full judgment, and reporting on Saturday's UK and global protests against the company.
ADVERTISING (p 26)
[The criticism in] the leaflet to the effect that [McDonald's] exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going to McDonald's is justified. It is true.In my judgment McDonald's advertising and marketing makes considerable use of susceptible young children to bring in custom, both their own and that of their parents who must accompany them, by pestering their parents.
McDONALD'S FOOD (pp 21 & 23)
At the material time of publication of the leaflet between September 1987, and September 1990, McDonald's food was high in fat (including saturated fat) and salt (sodium) and animal products and it has continued to be so.I..find that various of [McDonald's] advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a postive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food, high in fat and saturated fat and animal products and sodium, and at one time low in fibre, did not match.
THE REARING AND SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (p 29)
[The criticism that McDonald's] are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food is justified, true in substance and in fact.EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES (pp 33 & 37)
[McDonald's UK] does pay its workers low wages, thereby helping to depress wages for workers in the catering trade in Britain. [McDonald's] are stongly antipathetic to any idea of unionisation of crew in their restaurants.
