People versus the McDonald's corporation
The McDonald's corporation versus People 

They operate in more than a hundred countries. Indefinite number of cows need to be slaughtered every year to produce 30,000 tons of beef that is used for serving hamburgers in their restaurants. They are the only player on the fast food market that opened their own Hamburger University (Oak Brook, Illinois), the aim of which is to teach people how to make more hamburgers in a shorter time and at lower costs. They are the McDonald's corporation.

When you build an empire of that size and wealth, it seems that certain controversial actions have to be taken on the way. As a result, the opponents of globalisation, health experts and environmentalists are only some of the people who have found skeletons hidden in the company's closet.

In 1986 in London, a group of Green Peace activists was distributing a leaflet called "What's wrong with McDonald's". According to its main thesis: the company and its likes absorbed food and natural resources from poor countries, thus making them even poorer. They also encouraged cutting down the Amazonian forest, as more land was needed for cow ranchers who supplied their restaurants with meat. Tests showed that as far as nutrition standards were concerned, the food they served was not only worthless, but possibly very unhealthy. Finally, although these are only a selection of the most important points, they often tried to use marketing strategies that intentionally exploited family values or tried to attract children by means of aggressive advertising.

The company sued the Green Peace activists, among them Helen Steel and David Morris, for libel. For obscure formal reasons, the pair (the remaining members of the group apologized to the company and backed off) was not given legal aid and neither could they afford a lawyer, so they defended themselves. The company, on the other hand, hired a team of top lawyers and, unsurprisingly, it won. Funnily enough, it the course of the trial it turned out that most of the thesis published in the leaflet were accurate, so the company's reputation suffered immensely. Steel and Morris received huge support from the public and they decided to appeal. The legal battle continued and the corporation was accused of using hired spies and corrupted policemen to infiltrate the Green Peace group.

Finally, last year European Court of Human Rights ruled that the initial decision of the court that gave victory to the corporation was invalid and the conduct of the trial breached the Steel and Morris's right to freedom of expression as well as the right to a fair trial. After 20 years of conflict, the infamous case of "McLibel" was solved, yet the company seems to be doing just fine. 

VOCABULARY
indefinite - nieokreślony
to slaughter - zarzynać
environmentalist - działacz organizacji ekologicznych
to have a skeleton in the closet - ukrywać przed innymi niewygodne fakty
leaflet - ulotka
to cut down - wycinać
nutrition - odżywianie
to exploit - wykorzystywać
libel - pomówienie
obscure - niejasny
to back off - wycofać się
to appeal - odwoływać się
to rule - zarządzić
conduct - przebieg
to breach - łamać (prawo, reguły)

Vocabulary exercise 

Which of the words from the glossary match the definitions? 

1. to decree - ...............
2. to abuse - .................
3. to have a secret that you want to hide - .........................
4. presenting false information that is hurtful for a person or organization- ..................
5. a small publication usually meant for free distribution - ..................
6. to violate law - ..................
7. somebody who wants to preserve the natural environment - ..................
8 food, diet - ..................
9. handling, organization - ..................
10. to kill - ..................
 

Joke of the week
A lawyer and a Scotsman

A certain lawyer form London went to Scotland to hunt ducks. As he shot a bird, it fell onto a field behind a fence. He climbed over the fence and was getting ready to pick the duck when an elderly farmer appeared driving a tractor.
"Leave that duck. It's on my land." - said the farmer.
"But I shot it! It's mine!" - exclaimed the lawyer.
"Yeah, but it's on my property!" - replied the Scottish farmer.
"Look mate, I'm a lawyer. Either you let me take that duck, or I'll sue you, and I'll have your land, your tractor and everything you've got!" - answered the man from London.
"You don't know how we solve this sort of problems here in Scotland." - said the farmer. - "We use the Three Kick Rule."
"How does it work?" - asked the lawyer.
"Well, I kick you three times, and then you kick me three times, and so it goes on until one of us gives up." - replied the farmer.
The lawyer thought that since the farmer was an old man, it couldn't be very painful, so he agreed.
The first kick of farmer's heavy boots hit him in the private parts. When he fell down on his knees, another kick almost broke his nose. He was lying on the ground, in agony, when the third kick hurt his kidney. After a while he was able to stand up. He spitted out blood and said: "Okey, it my turn."
"It's okay." - replied the farmer. - "I give up. You can take the duck."

VOCABULARY
fence - ogrodzenie
elderly - w podeszłym wieku
to sue sb - pozwać kogoś
private parts - "części intymne"
kidney - nerka
to spit out - wypluwać

Answer Key:
1. to rule,    2. to exploit,    3. to have a skeleton in the closet,    4. libel,    5. leaflet,    6. to breach,    7. environmentalist,    8. nutrition ,    9. conduct,    10. to slaughter

---