[Reader-list] fast food chains

[Ananth]

Hi,
I think pepsi sell water in Europe too. And pepsi and coke are not great 
examples of power India. When you think of a very successful MNC in India 
that is real huge think of HLL. 200 million people in India use HLL 
products a day and a lot of people look at HLL as an Indian Company.
Regards
Ananth
At 06:28 PM 2/28/05, ish at sarai.net wrote:
>When companies become as big as McDonald it is very true that their
>practices are questionable on many fronts. You all must know about the
>people who have written and made films (like ..supersize me) about the
>finer points of McDonalds activities(also added to by Sanjay). The basis on
>which these companies run are simple make more money and more profit and we
>are smart enough to see the rest. I think it is worth going into the
>discussion whether the big-ass co's like McDonalds and coca-cola are really
>worth the power and money they accumulate(at least in our country) or is it
>still better that  small and local business are given a chance.
>Coca-cola/Pepsi co push drinking water in our country.(.. A man is physical
>equivalent of  2 buckets of water and a handful of minerals....). India is
>the only country in the world Pepsi Co sells water in.
>This mail is a bit erratic but i have so much to say..  maybe I will go
>into it later. I personally I hate the McDonalds food. It really sucks. I
>wonder how it can enhance a (what?)thought process?
>
>
><>
>ish
>      >>we are not what puts us into words<<
>__________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>On February 27, 5:51 am "sanjay  ghosh" <definetime at rediffmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Khalid,
> >
> > This article may not be immediately relevant to your research but
> > it's become important addition to the fast-food chain debate.
> >
> >
> > McLibel Two win legal aid case
> >
> > Mark Oliver and agencies
> > Tuesday February 15, 2005 (1.15pm)
> >
> > Two campaigners known as the "McLibel Two" should have been given
> > legal aid by the British government to defend themselves against a
> > libel action by the food giant McDonald's, Europe's highest court ruled
> > today.
> > The ruling by the European court of human rights is a huge victory
> > for the pair, David Morris and Helen Steel, and a pleasing end for them
> > to the 15-year McLibel saga. It is being scrutinised by the government,
> > which may now be forced to change the libel laws. Campaign groups
> > welcomed today's verdict.
> > The McLibel Two lost a libel case against McDonald's in 1997, in
> > which the relatively penniless environmental activists famously
> > represented themselves against the firm's expensive lawyers. The firm
> > had sued them for libel because of leaflets the two Londoners had
> > distributed, but not written, entitled: "What's Wrong with
> > McDonald's". In the aftermath of that case, they brought a separate
> > case to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg against the UK
> > government, arguing that English libel law and the lack of legal aid
> > for defendants of defamation cases had forced them to represent
> > themselves.
> > Today human rights judges upheld their argument, made at a hearing in
> > Strasbourg last year, that having to represent themselves denied them
> > the right to free speech and a fair hearing. The judges said the pair
> > had not been given a fair trial as guaranteed by the European
> > Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory.
> > At the two-hour hearing in September, the pair's lawyer - for whom
> > they did have legal aid - said the 1994-97 David and Goliath struggle
> > of the libel case was "patently unfair" and there was a stark
> > inequality between the two sides.
> > The government had previously argued that the fact that the McLibel
> > Two had lost was not evidence they had been let down by the law. A
> > spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said today:
> > "We are studying the judgment very carefully."
> > The government has already amended the libel laws since it came to
> > power in 1997. Changes introduced in the Access to Justice Act in 2000
> > mean people may be eligible for legal aid in libel actions under
> > "special measures".
> > In 1997 at the conclusion of the libel hearing, which at 313 days was
> > the longest court case in English legal history, the McLibel Two were
> > ordered to pay McDonald's £40,000 for handing out leaflets attacking
> > the company's commercial and employment practices.
> > The pair have never paid the damages. The case is thought to have
> > cost the fast food giant £10m and has been described as "the biggest
> > corporate PR disaster in history". The high court found the leaflet was
> > true when it accused McDonald's of paying low wages to its workers,
> > being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals used in its food
> > products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.
> > After today's ruling the McLibel Two said in a statement: "Having
> > largely beaten McDonald's and won some damning judgments against them
> > in our trial we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive and unfair
> > UK laws."
> > The statement said that following the ruling, "the government may be
> > forced to amend or scrap some of the existing UK laws."
> > It added: "We hope that this will result in greater public scrutiny
> > and criticism of powerful organisations whose practices have a
> > detrimental effect on society and the environment.
> > "The McLibel campaign has already proved that determined and
> > widespread grass roots protest and defiance can undermine those who try
> > to silence their critics, and also render oppressive laws
> > unworkable." The statement ended by noting there was "continually
> > growing opposition for McDonald's and all it stands for". This, the
> > pair said was "a vindication of all the efforts of those around the
> > world who have been exposing and challenging the corporation's business
> > practice".
> > Earlier, speaking ahead of the outcome, Mr Morris told the BBC Radio
> > 4 Today programme that he still had concerns about McDonald's. He said:
> > "I don't think they can change because they are an institution that
> > exists to make profits and to increase their power.
> > " We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's is doing but
> > what all multinationals are doing to our planet. We believe there's an
> > alternative where people and communities have control over
> > decision-making and resources."
> > McDonalds has not been commenting on the case in Strasbourg, saying
> > it was a matter for the government as it was not directly involved.
> > Roger Smith, the director of the human rights and law reform group
> > Justice, said: "This is a wonderful victory for the sheer perseverance
> > of two litigants who have just stuck to the task and insisted upon
> > justice. "I think it's also a victory for human rights and a
> > recognition of legal aid as a basic human right which should be
> > available in all types of cases where it is absolutely necessary."
> >
> > > From the archive: the 'McLibel' trial
> > June 29 1994: Leaflet 'a threat' to McDonald 's
> > June 30 1994: Libel accused attack McDonald 's 'Maxwellian bullying
> > of critics' January 17 1995: Second Front: The big beef bun fight
> > December 9 1995: McDonald 's clash sets record
> > March 9 1996: You and I against McWorld
> > December 14 1996: 'McLibel' trial ends at last
> > April 25 1997: My cultural life: Dave Morris - McLibel trial
> > defendant and anarchist June 20 1997: Empire of burgers
> > June 20 1997: Long, slow battle in a fast food war
> > June 29 1997: The McDonald's court case was a big waste of time and
> > space
> > Useful links
> > McDonald's
> > McSpotlight
> > Film - McLibel: two worlds collide
> > European Court of Human Rights
> > European Convention on Human Rights (pdf)
> >
> >
> > --- COMENT----
> >
> >
> >      20-year fight ends with libel law in the dock
> >
> > Human rights court rules that McLibel anarchists were denied fair
> > trial by the limitations of the legal aid system and they denied a fair
> > trial
> > John Vidal
> > Wednesday February 16, 2005
> > The Guardian
> >
> > Twenty years ago last month a small anarchist group called London
> > Greenpeace - nothing to do with the environmentalists - began a
> > campaign to "expose the reality" behind what they called the
> > advertising "mask" of McDonald's.
> > As they handed defamatory leaflets to McDonald's customers in the
> > Strand, London, no one could have foreseen the chain of events which
> > led directly to yesterday's ruling in the European court of human
> > rights, and to Dave Morris and Helen Steel handing out more offending
> > leaflets yesterday outside the same restaurant.
> > The McLibel two, beaming below a DIY banner reading "20 years of
> > Global Resistance to McWorld", said they were "elated".
> > "It's a great victory," Ms Steel said. "[This judgment] shows that
> > the British libel laws are oppressive and unfair. I hope that the
> > government will have to change them, and there will be greater freedom
> > of speech for the public."
> > But it barely needed the European court to decide that the trial was
> > "unfair". Anyone who visited the austere Court 11 of the Royal Courts
> > of Justice between June 28 1994 and December 16 1996 when the epic
> > 313-day libel case was in progress could tell at a glance that the two
> > defendants were at a horrendous disadvantage.
> > Mr Morris and Ms Steel, who earned about £3,500 a year, had no legal
> > training and were trying to defend themselves in one of the most
> > complex branches of the English law.
> > Sometimes they were cutting, but not surprisingly they hesitated,
> > paused, and conferred at every point. What was expected to be a six-
> > and then a 12-week trial became a painfully slow slog stretching into
> > legal infinity. It was a triumph for Ms Steel and Mr Morris just to
> > have got through the legal thickets of the 28 pre-trial hearings and
> > into the case proper, but they needed the help of the judge as well as
> > the pro bono advice of Keir Starmer QC and others who shared their
> > civil liberties concern about the case.
> > McDonald's, on the other hand, had the smoothest of luxury legal
> > machines. The company not only employed Richard Rampton QC, a
> > formidable £2,000-a-day libel specialist, a £1,000-a-day solicitor, and
> > the services of a full legal chambers, but also had access to anything
> > it wanted, and thought nothing of flying in witnesses and experts from
> > all over the world.
> > Halfway through the longest trial in English civil case history the
> > McLibel two's joint assessment of English libel law was that it was an
> > arcane relic, a legal lottery that favoured only the very rich.
> > They were appalled that when they took the British government to the
> > European court of human rights in 1991 to try to get legal aid they
> > were refused, bizarrely because it was considered that they were
> > defending themselves rather well on their own. They were infuriated,
> > too, that they were denied a jury on the basis that ordinary people
> > would not understand complex scientific arguments, even though they -
> > as ordinary as they come - could clearly understand the issues well
> > enough to defend themselves. And they found it hard to believe that the
> > burden was always on them on prove with primary evidence what almost
> > every other country would consider legitimate comment.
> > But the heart of their case was that McDonald's, a company with a
> > turnover of $40bn (£21bn) a year, was unfairly using the British libel
> > laws to sue two penniless people for libel over public interest issues
> > which affect people's every day lives. It was a clear case, they said,
> > of the corporate censorship of opposition and debate backed by the
> > British establishment.
> > Mr Morris, who shot from the hip during the trial, in contrast to Ms
> > Steel's more incisive questioning, recalled yesterday how they got
> > through the legal nightmare. "We basically rolled up our sleeves and
> > got on with it."
> > What he did not say was that they frequently felt cruelly punished
> > for their original ignorance of the law. The case may have gone on so
> > long in part because of their lack of legal aid, but it was also
> > because they believed the court treated them shabbily at times. When Ms
> > Steel was suffering badly from stress, she was denied the shortest
> > adjournment.
> > Yesterday the book was closed on a trial that would not be allowed to
> > last so long today - and would probably never happen, if only because
> > no big corporation would ever seek to pursue two such determined
> > critics.
> > "It was a nightmare fighting that case, but it was a unique chance to
> > expose the reality of McDonald's," Mr Morris said.
> > As ever, he took the bigger political picture. "Our overall object
> > has always been to encourage people to stand up for themselves and to
> > take control of their resources, not multinational companies or
> > governments. This should encourage people to better defend
> > themselves." The final proof that times have changed since 1985 was
> > to be found in the restaurant outside which the McLibel two gave their
> > press conference yesterday. Of five customers chosen at random, two had
> > not only heard of the McLibel trial but agreed that what Ms Steel and
> > Mr Morris had achieved was both important and significant for society
> > and had moved on the debate about food and corporate behaviour. The
> > conundrum, perhaps, was that they had still chosen to eat there.
> > · John Vidal wrote McLibel - Burger Culture on Trial (Macmillan)
> >
> > > From flyers to lawsuits
> >
> > 1985 London Greenpeace (LG) launches anti-McDonald's campaign
> >
> > 1989 McDonald's sends spies to infiltrate LG
> >
> > 1990 McDonald's issues writs against five people
> >
> > 1991 All except Ms Steel and Mr Morris apologise. Defendants take the
> > government to European court of human rights to demand legal aid.
> > Denied 1992-4 Pre-trial hearings
> >
> > 1994 Full trial starts
> >
> > 1996 Trial ends after 313 days in high court
> >
> > 1997 Judge finds for McDonald's in five areas, but for the McLibel
> > two in three
> > 1999 Appeal starts
> >
> > 1998 Defendants sue Metropolitan police
> >
> > 1999 Appeal court rules defendants must pay £40,000
> >
> > 2001 Appeal to European court of human rights
> >
> > 2004 Hearing begins
> >
> > 2005 Court ruling
> >
>
>_________________________________________
>reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>Critiques & Collaborations
>To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
>subscribe in the subject header.
>List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>