[483] in Vegetarian_Support_Group
A BRIEF HISTORY OF LONDON GREENPEACE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (elsiedee@MIT.EDU)
Thu Apr 6 10:38:49 1995
To: vsg@MIT.EDU, save@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 95 10:36:19
From: elsiedee@MIT.EDU
------- Forwarded Message
To: mclibel@world.std.com
Subject: A BRIEF HISTORY OF LONDON GREENPEACE
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 09:53:38 -0400
From: mclibel-approval@world.std.com
Mar 30, 1995
Sender: mclibel-approval@world.std.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mclibel
A BRIEF HISTORY OF LONDON GREENPEACE AND TRIAL BACKGROUND
From: Richard Coniberi <coniberr@cs.man.ac.uk>
The name Greenpeace was used in Britain at least as early as 1971.
It appeared in print as the title of a broadsheet published as a
supplement in Peace News in 1971. The broadsheet was a compilation
of ideas about how individuals could take action in their own lives
to preserve the ecosystem.
In 1972 "Greenpeace" was used as the name for a coalition of
individuals and groups in Britain campaigning against French
nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific. At the same time there
were other Greenpeace groups both in Britain and in some other
countries: the different groups were in touch with one another
as an informal network of autonomous groups, in particular around
the issue of nuclear testing.
The London group, usually known as Greenpeace (London), continued
to be in touch with other such groups around the world.
In 1977, the biggest of the Greenpeace organisations outside
Britain - the Vancouver Greenpeace Foundation in Canada -
formalised its links with some of the other Greenpeace
organisations around the world, seeing itself as the "lead"
group. Shortly before this, in late 1976, members of that
organisation came to London and met people from Greenpeace
(London). The Vancouver people wanted the London group to "take
its orders from" the Board of Directors in Vancouver, but were
told that the London group had never had that kind of
relationship with other Greenpeace Groups. (The relationship
with groups like the Vancouver one had often been close, but
never based on any sort of hierarchy.) Subsequently, a letter
from Vancouver explicitly recognised the autonomy of the
existing London group.
Activists in London - including the people who had come from
Canada - who DID want to be under the control of the Vancouver
Foundation, formed a London Branch of the Vancouver Foundation,
which then formed a limited company and became known as
Greenpeace Ltd or Greenpeace UK.
Since 1977, Greenpeace (London) and Greenpeace Ltd have been
quite separate organisations, working on different campaigns -
though of course their separate campaigns have had some issues
in common, such as anti-nuclear work.
The original London Greenpeace Group has deliberately stayed as
a small group of activists, without leaders, with decisions
taken by consensus of all those involved, and has always
encouraged people in other areas to set up their own active
groups rather than "joining" London Greenpeace. Greenpeace
Ltd, on the other hand, has done exactly the opposite, and has
grown large in resources but with absolutely no democratic - let
alone libertarian - aspect to its work. For example, although
you can give money to them, you can't join the organisation in
the sense of having any say whatsoever in what the organisation
does.
Distribution of the "What's Wrong With McDonald's" factsheet
began in 1985
----------------------------------------------------------------
Background To The McLibel Case
In the past, MuckDonald's has threatened an assortment of British
critics - from trade union groups and environmentalists, through
national newspapers and TV networks, to Prince Philip - for daring
to criticise them. Without exception, the critics have apologised
and retracted, so that McD could always say that no criticism of
its activities had ever been sustained - until now.
In 1989 McDonalds began paying spies to infiltrate meetings and
events of London Greenpeace, and following people home. A year
later they issues writs against some of the people who had been
at some of the meetings and events the spies had attended. None
of the five issued with writs were responsible for writing the
factsheet. Three apologised for various personal reasons,
including the threat of having to pay hundreds of thousands of
pounds, which could be deducted from their income, possibly for
the rest of their lives, if judgement was made against them.
Although it was quite straight forward to produce books and
videos which supported the factsheet, this is not enough. Only
evidence from the authors, producers. witnesses etc would be
acceptable.
The writs allege that there are 16 points in the factsheet that
are libelous; including the statement that McDonalds are
responsible for the torture and murder of animals, destruction
of the environment/rainforests, that they exploit their workers
and comments about the chemical and nutritional content of the
food.
The two campaigners - Helen Steel and Dave Morris from the London
Greenpeace Group, defied the burger chain's expectation that they
too would cave in under the power of its $20,000,000,000 a year
corporate muscle (and three years of intricate legal formalities).
So, for the first time, McDonalds will have to sustain in open
court the claim that criticism - of its environmental impact, its
collusion with mistreatment of animals, its record over workers'
rights, its brainwashing of children into unhealthy eating habits,
and so on - is unjustified. A total of approximately 170 UK and
international witnesses will give evidence in court, including
environmental amd nutritional experts, trade unionists,
McDonald's employees and top executives.
McD has persuaded a judge that the issues are too complex and
technical to allow their assessment by a jury, as would be normal
in a libel case. This no-jury ruling led the legal correspondent
of a major British newspaper to remark, "I cannot think of a case
in which the legal cards have been so spectacularly stacked
against one party".
The McLibel Two are unemployed, and legal aid is not available to
defendants in a libel case, so they have to present their own case
against some of the country's top lawyers employed by McD.
Just prior to the start of the case, McDonald's issued leaflets
nationwide calling their critics liars. So Helen and Dave
themselves took out a counter claim for libel against McDonald's:
this will run concurrently with the McDonald's libel action. The
text for the McDonalds leaflet was as follows:-
TO OUR CUSTOMERS
WHY MCDONALDS IS GOING TO COURT
From 18 April 1994 McDonalds will go to court to stop
publication of the leaflet "What's Wrong With McDonald's"
The leaflet is produced by London Greenpeace, who call
themselves anarchists and are NOT in any way connected
to Greenpeace, the renowned environmental organisation
It contains many statements about McDonald's which are
NOT TRUE AND HIGHLY DAMAGING
The leaflet has been distributed worldwide since 1984.
Its contents have been repeated in the media, school and
even a church magazine
During that period, the group has ignored several requests
from McDonald's to stop publishing the leaflet
As a last resort, McDonald's is going to court to prove
that the contents of the leaflet are untrue and to stop
its publication
This action is not about freedom of speech; it is about
the right to stop people telling lies
Also prior to the case Jeremy Corbyn MP placed an Early Day
Motion in parliament. This is not debated but is placed on the
parliamentary record. It is covered by 'privelege' and so can be
quoted in part or in full without fear of libel proceedings.
The motion was as follows:-
That this house notes with alarm that, while the
McDonald's Hamburger Corporation suppresses criticism by frequent
recourse to libel writs, it spends 1 billion dollars annually on
advertising and promoting junk food, whilst also making
grandiose, hypocritical and sometimes false claims about its
'concern' over environmental and social matters; notes that
McDonald's causes environmetal damage and social problems by
producing mountains of unnecessary packaging, not recycled after
use, by promoting the type of diet linked to tooth decay (sugar),
children's hyperactivity (E number additives), heart disease,
obesity, diabetes and cancer (high levels of fat, sugar and salt,
low levels of fibre and vitamins), and food poisoning (meat), by
relying on cattle ranching, some of which is on ex-rainforest
land, and methane emissions which are a major cause of global
warming, by employing advertising techniques exploiting children,
by exploiting workers with low pay, poor conditions,
authoritarian management and opposition to trades unions and by
being responsible for the unnecessary and cruel deaths of
billions of animals; and notes that the company has misled the
public or lied about their use of ex-rainforest land beef,
chemicals in their food, lack of recycling of packaging and poor
nutritional quality of their food.
------------------------------------------------------------------
After several years of pre-trial hearings, the case finally began
at the end of June 1994. It was initially expected that the trial
would finish by Easter but it is now set to continue until the end
of 1995 ...
Please distribute this information far and wide.
Previous trial information is available on the World Wide Web at:-
http://anthfirst.san.ed.ac.uk/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. McLibel Support Campaign Press Office
PO Box 62 Phone/Fax 802-568-9628
Craftsbury VT 05826-0062 Email dbriars@world.std.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email
To: majordomo@world.std.com
Subject: <not needed>
Body: subscribe mclibel
To unsubscribe, change the body to "unsubscribe mclibel"
