Slapp in the face

Every now and then I find myself in a situation when one of my friends or family suggests having a McDonald's and I always refuse. I am a bit of a foodie so the reaction is either an assumption that I don't like them or that I'm a bit mad. Now it's true that I don't like McDonald's burgers, I think they are bland and boring. A friend of mine who is a qualified chef tells me that food should have three qualities, Temperature, Taste, and Texture ~ I feel that McDonald's (and other fast food) lacks all three. As Jesus said "So, because you are lukewarm - neither hot nor cold - I am about to spit you out of my mouth"(Revelations 3:16). But there's more to my choice than that.

Happy Chickens

I recently wrote here a bit about responsible consumption, of course there are many forms this can take, we can avoid buying the vegetables with lots of food miles, we can make a decision to only buy Free Range or maybe organic eggs, ethically produced jeans and so on. I know that on my regular shopping I do a bit of this I no longer buy peat based compost, I will only ever buy free range eggs and vegetables in season, but the other day I did buy a pineapple and the UK is not a major producer of my favourite fruit!

I think we are now at a stage where few westerners would choose to buy anything produced in Russia, I have mentioned before that I came to maturity in an era when we avoided Spanish, Greek or South African products, but how about companies? Do you ever make a moral decision not to buy from a particular company? I know recently the transphobes have tried to start boycotts of retailers who have shown support for transgender people ~ and I'm quite certain I would not give my financial support to any organisation who opposed my existence.

Part of my pension is invested in an "Ethical" fund, to be totally honest I'm not sure exactly what that means, I know that there are no investments in the arms industry but I don't know about pharmaceuticals, oil exploration and exploitation, mining ~ or other industries that can be contentious. You could say that I'm being lazy about it, and you'd be right!

There are stores I don't like and choose not to use, but that is just a personal preference about their customer service, layout, or trading style, not an ethical choice. Only once have I joined a boycott of a particular company on moral grounds, I totally stopped using McDonalds in the early 1990s and haven't had any of their products since. Now this is not a great hardship to me as I am no fan of fast food anyway, but it is important to me. I have always been a bit of an environmentalist, never really an activist but keen to make small adjustments to help, to try and raise awareness a bit, so when I started to hear about the environmental damage McDonald's was causing I listened up, I felt I no longer wanted to give them any of my hard earned money. Then I heard about the McLibel case ~ two poor individuals being sued for libel by one of the most powerful conglomerates in the World. Read more about it in detail here, or a shorter Wikipedia article on the case here. 

Not all bullies are obvious

My boycott was no longer just about the negative environmental impact of the company, but the bullying of it's opponents, the ill treatment of it's employees (I have subsequently heard a lot more about the exploitation of staff, especially underage undertrained staff) and health ~ but now mostly about the arrogant bullying attitude towards customers, staff and others. Maybe it's silly of me to hold a grudge like this so long after the case, but I do.

This has all come to mind now because on my social media there has been much discussion about a certain well know children's author using exactly these same tactics to suppress discussion of her allegedly transphobic and extreme right wing attitudes. In the UK the libel laws still very much favour the super rich and corporations who can afford the costs of going to court against the poorer activists and journalists who are forced to defend themselves. It is not quite as bad as it was in the 1990s for the McLibel two, but not by much. This means that SLAPP* suits are easy to bring and will often work in frightening off any one who may object to statements or actions of the rich and famous.

In my view the use of SLAPP* suits is both a form of bullying and an admission of guilt, I gather that in the USA it is much more difficult to bring these cases, but in the two jurisdictions most important to me they appear to be in increasing use.

* SLAPP or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation "are a growing threat to freedom of speech and a free press - fundamental liberties that are the lifeblood of our democracy.

Typically used by the super-rich SLAPPs stifle legitimate reporting and debate. They are at their most pernicious before cases ever reach a courtroom, with seemingly endless legal letters that threaten our journalists, academics, and campaigners with sky-high cost and damages" quoted from gov.uk the UK Government's official website.

You can read more about SLAPP here from the Bar council (Barristers) of course you can't read anything about the Famous Children's Author's alleged use of SLAPP as so far they have been successful!