DOCSLIB.ORG

Mclibel: Do-It-Yourself Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mclibel: Do-It-Yourself Justice Mclibel: do-it-yourself justice Dave Morris ‘The McLibel case is the trial o f the century — it concerns the most important issues that any of us have to face, living our ordinary lives. ’ Michael Mansfield QC I am a 45-year-old single parent and ex-postal worker, living in North Two non-legalpeople’s London. I have been a social and political activist for over 25 years. I challenge to a multi-national and co-defendant Helen Steel (a 33-year-old barworker) were sued for libel by the $30 billion-a-year McDonald’s Corporation in 1990 over corporation succeeds against the distribution of a 1986 six-sided factsheet prophetically titled ‘What’s Wrong With McDonald’s? — Everything They Don’t Want the odds. You To Know’, of which no more than 5000 had been published. These leaflets, issued by London Greenpeace,1 criticised the highly- influential McDonald’s Corporation, the food industry and multinationals in general for promoting unhealthy food, damaging the environment, monopolising resources, exploiting workers, targeting and exploiting children and causing animal suffering. The leaflets advocated positive alternatives. None of these views were new, having already been widely publicly expressed by trade unionists, environmentalists and nutritionists for years. Transnational corporations are now the most powerful institutions on our planet, dominating our lives and the environment. McDonald’s alone spends over $2 billion annually advertising and promoting itself and its view of these issues worldwide. In our view it is an outrage that any such bodies should be able to try to suppress the public’s right to express and consider alternative points of view. The United Kingdom’s libel laws ‘The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible; to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds o f all right thinking people. ’ David Pannick, QC, The Times [UK] 20 April 1999 Libel laws in the United Kingdom are notorious. A defendant is guilty until proven innocent, despite facing having to pay huge potential damages and the draconian threat to freedom of speech. Cases are massively expensive, complex and completely stacked in favour of the prosecution. There is no legal aid. Right to jury trial can be denied. Every published book, programme, newspaper etc. is subjected to Tegalling’ by lawyers — generally almost all material critical of any institution or individual that it is believed might sue is secretly removed. The public has barely any idea of all this. Most libel suits result in a pre-trial climbdown by the defence and a grovelling and false ‘apology’ which is then paraded around by the Dave Morris is one o f the defendants in the McLibel case. victor as an example of how squeaky clean they supposedly are. This Contributions to this article were also made by Helen constitutes a form of mass censorship, generally carried out in secret. Its Steel and the McLibel Support Campaign. only beneficiaries are rich and powerful institutions and individuals. It VOL. 24, NO. 6, DECEMBER • 1999 269 McLIBEL: DO-IT-YOURSELF JUSTICE has to be asked why such censorship has never been disbelief and shock, he successfully applied for our right to a successfully challenged or defied before. If not now, when? jury trial to be denied us on the grounds that the issue of links It seems that libel developed as a means of settling between diet and disease would be too ‘complex’ for disputes between the wealthy without resorting to duelling. members of the public. It was a shrewd move — we believe But this century has seen a major shift as big business and that a jury would have been outraged that such a case could other powerful institutions and individuals have taken full be brought at all. Mr Rampton confidently predicted a trial advantage of the legal machinery (including libel) to lasting ‘3-4 weeks’. We went to appeal on both points, losing suppress criticism. The public, and the many diverse social the jury issue. and protest movements which have grown during this But, in a decision significant for all future libel cases, we century, place great store in their freedom to express their succeeded in getting our full defence restored pending full views. In the USA, as a result of the 18th century victory of disclosure of McDonald’s documents and the coming cross- the American Revolution against British rule, freedom of examination of witnesses. Support and publicity began to speech was established as a constitutional right. US grow, as did our own confidence. On the eve of trial corporations are increasingly making use of other more McDonald’s issued press releases and 300,000 leaflets amenable areas of the law, bringing what are known as through their UK stores attacking Helen, myself and other ‘slapps’ suits, to try to harass and disable their critics. campaigners for spreading ‘lies’. Surely this was a International companies are now capable of ‘window breathtakingly hypocritical act by a company having cried shopping’ around the world for the most favourable arena for ‘ libel! ’, calculated to undermine our public support when we obtaining public legal rulings in their favour — like the UK needed it most, and a much more extensive and serious for example. defamation that the one we were accused of. We countersued The whole legal system is dominated by lawyers, and is for libel in order to put McDonald’s under the burden of viewed by most ordinary people as an alienating, bizarre and proving that the London Greenpeace criticisms were untrue. oppressive edifice of jargon, procedures and hierarchy The trial finally started in June 1994, and lasted 314 court generally set up to defend the status quo (namely, those with days over three years (the previous longest ever libel hearing power or money). With current government attacks here on lasting 101 days), in which we ourselves were grilling US the right to legal aid and assistance, this perception can only and UK corporate executives and officials, dozens of experts grow and ensure a climate where the public’s expectations and witness of fact, fielding our own witnesses (none of and resistance to legal injustice continue to fall. whom were paid), and also having constant legal disputes But there are developments. Recently, as the media has including four more trips to the Court of Appeal. McDonald’s expanded and public criticism (especially of politicians) has pulled out all the stops and spent an estimated £ 10 million as become increasingly hard to stifle in the modem age, the UK against our total of £35,000 raised from public donations. courts have had to recognise that governmental bodies can The Corporation’s plan for a ‘3-4 week’ show trial had turned no longer bring defamation actions.2 This was a crack in the into a comprehensive public tribunal in which ‘MeWorld’ was legal door as far as we were concerned — after all, on trial. transnational corporations are often more powerful and even The administrative and advocacy workload was huge and less accountable than local and national governments, and the proceedings alienating, exhausting and highly stressful. hence should also have no right to suppress free public We continued to get some sporadic advice on specific legal debate over their activities. points, but 99% was down to us, working from our cramped homes. Helen had her job each weekend, and I was a single In court — the legal battle parent. However, it was greatly empowering to be members of the public uniquely able to challenge the might and 7 cannot think of a case in which the legal cards have sophistication of the corporate world face to face in the been so spectacularly stacked against one party.' witness box. They could not hide behind their usual slick PR Legal commentator, Marcel Berlins department. We felt a huge responsibility. As in society at We got two hours free legal aid — the advice amounted large, it really felt like two worlds colliding. As experienced to: ‘Libel is a nightmare for any defendant — with no legal campaigners, this, and the successes we were having, is what aid you’ve probably not got a cat in hell’s chance of even drove us on. We knew we were onto something big when getting to trial, let alone winning’. We decided to fight, after only a few weeks of testimony two members of the representing ourselves through 28 pre-trial hearings, some Corporation’s Board of Directors secretly flew over from lasting up to five days. We were given occasional pro-bono Chicago at their request to meet Helen and me in an interesting advice by a barrister, Keir Starmer, involved with the Haldane but futile effort to settle the case. Society of Socialist Lawyers. The main reason that the case took so long is because It was a nightmare being litigants in person, and we had to McDonald’s insisted that almost every criticism in the leam quickly on our feet. We argued furiously, to little avail, factsheet was libellous. We believe that those criticisms are for full disclosure by McDonald’s of all relevant company common sense views on matters of great public interest, not documents. England’s top libel judge was initially in charge just directed at McDonald’s but at the food industry in of our case. As we became more experienced and assertive, general. Defending such views made the case very wide- our arguments with McDonald’s and the judge increased. A ranging.3 new judge, Mr Justice Bell, who had only been appointed the The Corporation called its big guns into the witness box. year before and had never tried a libel case, was brought in Having been denied a jury, who might not be so ready to instead.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bears and Traditional Medicine World Animal Protection Email: [email protected]
    Correspondent: Mr Gilbert M. Sape Global Head of Campaign - Bears and Traditional Medicine World Animal Protection Email: [email protected] Joint open letter to: Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Dr Zhang Qi Director General Co-ordinator of Traditional and Complementary World Health Organisation Medicine Unit (TCM) Avenue Appia 20 Department of Service Delivery and Safety 1211 Geneva World Health Organisation Switzerland Avenue Appia 20 1211 Geneva Switzerland 6th April 2020 Dear Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Dr Zhang Qi, COVID-19: Health risks and wildlife1 markets – the need for a permanent global ban on wildlife markets and a highly precautionary approach to wildlife trade. The undersigned organisations acknowledge and commend the World Health Organisation’s current efforts to contain the pandemic spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). On the occasion of World Health Day, in the midst of a global pandemic believed to have originated in a live wildlife market, we call upon the WHO to publicly and unequivocally state the proven link between these markets and serious threats to human health. In line with its stated mission to serve public health at all times, we urge the WHO to recommend that governments worldwide permanently ban live wildlife markets and the use of wildlife in traditional medicine. This decisive action, well within the WHO’s mandate, would be an impactful first step in adopting a highly precautionary approach to wildlife trade that poses a risk to human health. While a robust global response is critical in detecting, treating and reducing transmission, it is equally necessary to take vital measures to prevent similar emerging infectious diseases developing into pandemics with the associated threats to human life, and social and economic well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • A STUDYGUIDE by Robert Lewis
    A STUDYGUIDE BY ROBERT LEWIS www.metromagazine.com.au www.theeducationshop.com.au McLibel (Franny Armstrong, 2005) is an 85-minute documentary film about the attempt by McDonald’s to stop the distribution of a pamphlet that they claimed defamed them. wo of the distributors of the settlement negotiations. Even spies. BEFORE WATCHING THE pamphlet, London Greenpeace FILM Tmembers Helen Steel and Dave Seven years later, in February 2005, Morris, defended themselves in what the marathon legal battle finally McLibel is about the court case turned out to be Britain’s longest-ever concluded at the European Court of that was brought by McDonald’s in civil trial. Human Rights. And the result took Britain to stop the distribution of the everyone by surprise – especially the pamphlet ‘What’s wrong with McDon- McLibel is the story of two ordinary British Government. ald’s?’. The pamphlet made many people who humiliated McDonald’s in accusations against McDonald’s. the biggest corporate PR disaster in McLibel is not just about hamburgers. history. McDonald’s loved using the It is about the importance of freedom To understand what the case was UK libel laws to suppress criticism. of speech now that multinational about you need to study the pamphlet. Major media organizations like the corporations are more powerful than BBC and The Guardian crumbled and countries. It is a long pamphlet, so to make the apologized. task easier it has been divided into Filmed over ten years by no-budget sub-sections in Table 1 on (page 3). But then they sued gardener Helen Director Franny Armstrong, McLibel The whole class should look at the Steel and postman Dave Morris.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Number of Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative
    Assembly and Executive Review Committee Review of the Number of Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly and on the Reduction in the Number of Northern Ireland Departments Part 1 - Number of Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly Together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee relating to the Report, the Minutes of Evidence, Written Submissions, Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Papers and Other Papers Ordered by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to be printed on 12 June 2012 Report: NIA 52/11-15 (Assembly and Executive Review Committee) REPORT EMBARGOED UNTIL COMMENCEMENT OF THE DEBATE IN PLENARY Mandate 2011/15 Second Report Committee Powers and Membership Committee Powers and Membership Powers The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is a Standing Committee established in accordance with Section 29A and 29B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Standing Order 59 which provide for the Committee to: ■ consider the operation of Sections 16A to 16C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and, in particular, whether to recommend that the Secretary of State should make an order amending that Act and any other enactment so far as may be necessary to secure that they have effect, as from the date of the election of the 2011 Assembly, as if the executive selection amendments had not been made; ■ make a report to the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the Executive Committee, by no later than 1 May 2015, on the operation of Parts III and IV of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and ■ consider such other matters relating to the functioning of the Assembly or the Executive as may be referred to it by the Assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • L'activisme Animaliste Et Ses Répercussions Sur La Politique Belge
    Université Libre de Bruxelles Institut de Gestion de l’Environnement et d’Aménagement du Territoire Faculté des Sciences Master en Sciences et Gestion de l'Environnement L’activisme animaliste et ses répercussions sur la politique belge Mémoire de Fin d'Etudes présenté par THIBAUT, LISA en vue de l'obtention du grade académique de Master en Sciences et Gestion de l'Environnement Finalité Gestion de l’Environnement Année Académique : 2018-2019 Directeur : Prof. Edwin Zaccai Mes remerciements les plus profonds aux douze activistes et militants politiques qui m’ont accordé leur confiance et ont pris le temps de répondre à mes questions. Grâce à eux, j’ai pu mieux comprendre la lutte antispéciste et ce qu’elle signifiait au quotidien pour chacun d’entre eux. Merci tout particulièrement à mon directeur de mémoire, le professeur Edwin Zaccai, pour son aide précieuse, ses corrections et ses conseils avisés. Merci à William Thibaut, Myriam Chapuis et Corneliu Gaina pour leur soutien sans faille. Merci à Julie Pondant, Violaine Jouan, Quentin Aubert, Viviane Thibaut et Géraldine Papegnies pour leurs conseils et leur relecture. Résumé La problématique du mémoire s’articule autour du cas de l’animalisme en Belgique, et plus particulièrement de la branche de la lutte antispéciste, et de ses retombées dans le monde politique. Quel pouvoir politique peuvent avoir concrètement ces mouvements sur les animaux ? Pour répondre à cette question, un état des lieux concernant les droits des animaux a été réalisé dans plusieurs parties du monde, avec un focus particulier sur l’historique et la situation actuelle de l’Union Européenne.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Activists from Abusive Litigation: Slapps in the Global
    PROTECTING ACTIVISTS FROM ABUSIVE LITIGATION SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH AND HOW TO RESPOND SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH Features and Policy Responses Author: Nikhil Dutta, Global Programs Legal Advisor, ICNL, [email protected]. Our thanks go to the following colleagues and partners for valuable discussions and input on this report: Abby Henderson; Charlie Holt; Christen Dobson; Ginna Anderson; Golda Benjamin; Lady Nancy Zuluaga Jaramillo; Zamira Djabarova; the Cambodian Center for Human Rights; iProbono; and SEEDS for Legal Initiatives. Published in July 2020 by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH 2 III. SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 4 A. Instances of Reported SLAPPs in the South 4 i. Thailand 5 ii. India 7 iii. Philippines 10 iv. South Africa 12 v. Other Instances of Reported SLAPPS in the South 13 B. Features of Reported SLAPPs in the South 15 IV. POLICY RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL NORTH 19 A. Enacting Protections for Public Participation 19 B. Creating Expedited Dismissal Procedures for SLAPPs 20 C. Endowing Courts with Supplemental Authorities to Manage SLAPPs 23 D. Permitting Recovery of Costs by SLAPP Targets 24 E. Authorizing Government Intervention in SLAPPs 25 F. Establishing Public Funds to Support SLAPP Defense 25 G. Imposing Compensatory and Punitive Damages on SLAPP Filers 25 H. Levying Penalties on SLAPP Filers 26 I. Reforming SLAPP Causes of Action 27 V. POLICY RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 27 A. Thailand 28 B. Philippines 30 C. Indonesia 33 VI. DEVISING FUTURE RESPONSES TO SLAPPS IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH 33 REFERENCES 37 I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Report Is No Longer Current, and Is to Be Used for Historical Purposes Only
    The following report is no longer current, and is to be used for historical purposes only. CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by DENA JONES for the Animal Welfare Institute 2 CRIMES WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by Dena Jones May 2008 Animal Welfare Institute Crimes Without Consequences: The Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States Researched and written by Dena Jones Animal Welfare Institute P.O. Box 3650 Washington, DC 20027 www.awionline.org Copyright © 2008 by the Animal Welfare Institute Printed in the United States of America ISBN 0-938414-94-1 LCCN 2008925385 i CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 5 1.1 About the author........................................................................ 6 1.2 About the Animal Welfare Institute ........................................... 6 1.3 Acknowledgements ................................................................... 6 2. Overview of Food Animal Slaughter in the United States ...................... 7 2.1 Animals Slaughtered ................................................................. 7 2.2 Types of Slaughter Plants .......................................................... 12 2.3 Number of Plants .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Research Paper Series
    Legal Research Paper Series NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY By Rita K. Lomio and J. Paul Lomio Research Paper No. 6 October 2005 Robert Crown Law Library Crown Quadrangle Stanford, California 94305-8612 NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRPAHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY I. Books II. Reports III. Law Review Articles IV. Newspaper Articles (including legal newspapers) V. Sound Recordings and Films VI. Web Resources I. Books RESEARCH GUIDES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES Hoffman, Piper, and the Harvard Student Animal Legal Defense Fund The Guide to Animal Law Resources Hollis, New Hampshire: Puritan Press, 1999 Reference KF 3841 G85 “As law students, we have found that although more resources are available and more people are involved that the case just a few years ago, locating the resource or the person we need in a particular situation remains difficult. The Guide to Animal Law Resources represents our attempt to collect in one place some of the resources a legal professional, law professor or law student might want and have a hard time finding.” Guide includes citations to organizations and internships, animal law court cases, a bibliography, law schools where animal law courses are taught, Internet resources, conferences and lawyers devoted to the cause. The International Institute for Animal Law A Bibliography of Animal Law Resources Chicago, Illinois: The International Institute for Animal Law, 2001 KF 3841 A1 B53 Kistler, John M. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000 HV 4708 K57 Bibliography divided into six subject areas: Animal Rights: General Works, Animal Natures, Fatal Uses of Animals, Nonfatal Uses of Animals, Animal Populations, and Animal Speculations.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to the European Commission
    To: Commissioners Kyriakides and Wojciechowski European Commission B-1049 Brussels, Belgium Please reply to: Animal Politics Foundation [email protected] Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 32 1012RZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands Subject: Live animal transports 15th of April 2021 Dear Commissioners Kyriakides and Wojciechowski, We, politicians from all over the world, call on the European Commission to take immediate steps to ensure effective protection of animals during long-distance transport. Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU stipulates that, as sentient beings, full regard should be paid to animal welfare requirements. However, time and time again, it has been shown that this fundamental part of the EU treaties is being ignored in the case of long-distance live animal transport. We ask the European Commission to act with the urgency appropriate to such situations involving the life and death of sentient beings. Millions of animals are transported annually, both within the European Union and to third countries. Animals are transported in terrible conditions, on journeys that can last several days, weeks or even months. They are crammed inside often dirty vehicles (trucks, vessels, and airplanes), suffer from high temperatures, dehydration, a lack of ventilation and stress. Many die during the journey. The recent tragedies on board the Queen Hind, Karim Allah and Elbeik vessels show it is time to take action. In all these cases, contingency plans were lacking, massive and severe animal suffering and the death of thousands of animals as a result. COVID-19 has worsened the situation: animals are regularly stuck at borders, sometimes with more than a 12-hour delay.
    [Show full text]
  • Mclibel: a Case Study in Enlish Defamation
    MCLIBEL: A CASE STUDY IN ENGLISH DEFAMATION LAW MARLENE ARNOLD NICHOLSON* I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................2 II. FREEDOM OF SPEECH JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION .....................................................................13 A. THE COMMISSION DECISION IN MCDONALD’S ...........................................16 B. HERTEL V. SWITZERLAND ............................................................................20 C. PRINCIPLES OF ADJUDICATION UNDER ARTICLE 10 ..................................24 D. APPLYING ARTICLE 10 TO MCDONALD’S...................................................30 III. DEFAMATION LAW IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES .........................................................................................................31 A. WHEN IS A STATEMENT DEFAMATORY?....................................................31 B. JUSTIFICATION ..........................................................................................34 C. FAULT.......................................................................................................35 D. “OPINION,” “FAIR COMMENT” AND “PROVABLE AS FALSE”.....................36 IV. THE MCDONALD’S OPINION.................................................................43 A. STARVATION IN THE THIRD WORLD..........................................................45 B. DESTRUCTION OF RAIN FORESTS...............................................................58 C. USE OF RECYCLED PAPER MATERIALS ......................................................61
    [Show full text]
  • The Anticruelty Statute: a Study in Animal Welfare Darian M
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2006 The Anticruelty Statute: A Study in Animal Welfare Darian M. Ibrahim William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Ibrahim, Darian M., "The Anticruelty Statute: A Study in Animal Welfare" (2006). Faculty Publications. 1680. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1680 Copyright c 2006 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE ANTICRUELTY STATUTE: A STUDY IN ANIMAL WELFARE DARIAN M. IBRAHIM* IN TRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 175 I. ANIMAL RIGHTS, ANIMAL WELFARE, AND THE CONCEPT OF HUMANE EXPLOITATION ................................................................. 177 II. LEGISLATURES, SOCIETAL TENSION, AND THE INEFFECTIVE ANTICRUELTY STATUTE .................................................................. 179 A . The A nticruelty Statute ............................................................. 179 B. Understanding Anticruelty Statute Exemptions ........................ 182 1. Societal Preference ............................................................. 182 2. Legislative C apture ............................................................ 184 3. Animals as Legal Property ................................................. 187 4. Efficiency and Competency ............................................... 187 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Options for Future Discussions
    Options for Future Discussions on Genetically Modified and Cloned Animals Proceedings from a workshop sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and Michigan State University and including the paper... Engineering Animals: Ethical Issues and Deliberative Institutions Prepared for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology by Sheila Jasanoff and Stefan Sperling (with Sang-Hyun Kim) Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology © Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced by any means, electronic or mechanical, without per- mission in writing from the publisher. This report was supported by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the University of Richmond. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts or the University of Richmond. THE PEW INitiatiVE ON FOOD AND BIOTECHNOLOGY Contents OPTIONS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON GENETICALLY ModIFIED AND CLONED ANIMALS ................. 5 Proceedings from a workshop sponsored by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology and Michigan State University Preface .................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Section 1: Discussion
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Articulating Animal Rights
    1 Articulating Animal Rights: Activism, Networks and Anthropocentrism Eva Haifa Sarah Giraud Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2011 2 Abstract The thesis establishes a conversation between Donna Haraway and the work of contemporary UK animal rights groups, in order to develop their – respective – approaches to articulating animal rights issues. To analyse the tactics of these movements a conceptual framework is constructed through combining Haraway's insights with those of Bruno Latour, performative uses of actor- network theory and key concepts from Pierre Bourdieu (such as field, habitus and doxa). Through focusing on the tactics of UK animal rights groups the thesis works to recuperate certain of these practices from the criticisms Haraway levels at animal rights groups more broadly; illustrating contexts where these movements are departing from humanist rights-discourses and developing approaches more suited to the radical critique of anthropocentrism that is central to Haraway's own project. To develop a sense of the disparate approaches taken by these animal rights movements that complement Haraway's arguments, various online and offline tactics are analysed; drawing on a range of lobbying practices undertaken by movements involved in the vivisection debate (such as SPEAK and the BUAV), before focusing on more creative forms of vegan campaigning engaged in by local Nottingham groups (such as Veggies Catering Campaign and Nottingham Animal Rights). 3 Love and thanks to: Robin Shackford; for making me happy and centred, as well as hearing me repetitively go over my arguments. Annie Giraud; for love and support and everything else that I can‟t put into words.
    [Show full text]