the world has moved on, with you like me to supersize those fries?

[Guest guest]

Retrial ordered for McDonald's libel suit

Last Updated Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:47:20 EST

CBC News

STRASBOURG, FRANCE - Two British environmental activists convicted of

libelling McDonald's did not receive a fair trial, the European Court

of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday.

 

The court, based in Strasbourg, France, said David Morris and Helen

Steel should have received legal aid from the British government and

it awarded them about $56,000 in damages.

 

 

 

It also ruled their freedom of expression had been infringed and

ordered Britain to offer the activists a retrial.

 

The British government, which has three months to appeal the

decision, said it was studying the decision.

 

Claimed McDonald's starved Third World

 

The case began in 1984 when Morris and Steel handed out leaflets in

London attacking the fast-food company's working practices and

policies. The leaflets were titled " What's Wrong with McDonald's? "

and " Everything They Don't Want You to Know. "

 

The flyers accused McDonald's of starving the third world, destroying

rainforests and selling unhealthy food.

 

McDonald's sued and the 1994-1997 trial, widely known as

the " McLibel " case, lasted 314 court days – the longest civil or

criminal trial in English history.

 

It ended with the two vegetarian activists receiving fines worth the

equivalent of about $140,000 for libelling the restaurant chain.

 

An appeals court upheld much of the original judgment in 1999 but

reduced the damages.

 

Took case to Europe

 

The activists then took their case to the European court, arguing

that their human rights had been violated by England's legal system.

 

They argued the trial violated due process because English courts at

the time did not provide paid-for lawyers for defendants in libel

cases.

 

They also claimed the case infringed on their freedom of expression

because English law put the burden on them to justify the allegations

in the leaflets, which they did not write.

 

The trial judge in 1997 found that some claims in the pamphlet –

including that the company was to blame for starvation in the Third

World or that its food caused cancer – were untrue.

 

But he agreed that McDonald's was responsible for animal cruelty and

for exploiting children through its advertising.

 

McDonald's says it has 'moved on'

 

Celebrating outside a McDonald's in London, Steel told the BBC the

case was a " complete nightmare, " but said it had been good to fight

it.

 

" Hopefully, the government will be forced to change the law and that

will mean greater freedom of speech, " she said.

 

Not being a party to the case, McDonald's declined to comment, but

noted in a statement that " although the so-called 'McLibel' case came

to court in 1994, the allegations related to practices in the 80s. "

 

" The world has moved on since then and so has McDonald's, " the

company added.

 

40 years in the local store

Got forced out by the supermarket

The price of all your favorite meals

Stays low but now you can’t afford it

Send in the supermarket forces

Stick it on a card to save you cash

They know your details in a flash

Streamlined sets the mental tone

Now everyone’s a shopping clone