Santa Cruz McDonalds Attacked

Way to show the Chinese secret police by breaking windows in Santa Cruz! You have illuminated the terrifying link between surveillance, the global police state, and the $1 menu, and now the world will never be the same...

This was clearly a positive vandalism directed against a high priority target. Of all the fast food chains and meat dealers, McDonalds takes the cake in the worst offenses against the ecosystem (clearcutting rainforests in South America for cattle ranches) against human rights (mistreated employees, union-busting activities, etc...), against consumer health (lying about so-called nutritional benefit of their meals, placement in lower income neighborhoods, etc...), against animal rights (factory farm feedlots, slaughterhouse cruelties, etc...) and many other violations..

Here is some evidence of McDonald's wrongdoing from the McLibel trial;

"The section of the McLibel Trial on the connections between McDonald's and rainforest destruction (particularly in Central and South America) begins on 22nd February, with the testimony of Ray Cesca (Director of Global Purchasing of the McDonald's Corporation).

McDonald's has been enmeshed in controversy over its global promotion of beef consumption - (it spends $1½ billion annually on advertising and promotions, and is the world's largest user of beef) - despite the huge damage that cattle ranching has inflicted on tropical forests. The Corporation has already had to recognise such damage (McDonald's letter 26 July 1982) but has tried to fob off its critics with claims that around the world they have never used any "meat from cattle raised in former rainforests" (as stated in public announcements and official private letters, in the hands of the Defendants, dated from 22 Feb 1983 to Sept 1992).

At the start of the McLibel Trial, Richard Rampton QC (for McDonald's) claimed that no beef had ever been exported to McDonald's anywhere in the world from "rainforest countries".

THESE ARE BLATANT UNTRUTHS AND WILL BE PROVEN TO BE SO.

The Defendants will be seeking Mr Cesca's 'explanation' for the following:

(1) CENTRAL AMERICAN BEEF IMPORTS TO McDONALD'S IN THE USA
The Marketing Director of Coop Montecillos (McDonald's sole hamburger process plant for their Costa Rican stores) stated in a filmed interview in 1982: "We export meat to the US, 70% of the meat goes to food production outlets such as restaurant chains like McDonald's..." Q."Which fast food chains do you supply?" A."We supply McDonald's and Burger King." (From film 'Jungleburger', shown in court).

(2) EX-RAINFOREST LAND USED IN COSTA RICA
Richard Rampton QC (for McDonald's) admitted on the first day of the McLibel Trial: "In Costa Rica, when the first McDonald's restaurant was opened in 1970, some of the land on which the beef was raised had been rainforest up to the 1960's..", ie. destroyed less than 10 years before. (From official court transcript).

(3) ROW WITH PRINCE PHILIP, AND EXPORTS OF BRAZILIAN BEEF FOR McDONALD'S IN UK, SWITZERLAND & ARGENTINA
McDonald's UK secretly imported 5 consignments of Brazilian beef in 1983/4, as admitted by the company's witnesses during the trial. This followed a blazing row in 1983 between George Cohon (McDonald's Canadian President) and Prince Philip (President of the World Wildlife Fund) over Brazilian beef. (As described in the witness box by David Walker, Chairman of McKeys, McDonald's supply plant).
Brazilian beef has also been exported for McDonald's use in Switzerland and Argentina in the 1990's (admitted by Dr Gomez Gonzales, McDonald's International Meat Purchasing Manager, in the witness box).


(4) ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE CAUSED BY BRAZILIAN BEEF
McDonald's Brazilian stores have been supplied with beef from regions where ranches have damaged the environment and caused the eviction of peasant farmers. Displacement of small farmers is recognised by McDonald's to be a major cause of rainforest destruction as they have little alternative but to move into the Amazon region to seek new land (by cutting the trees). McDonald's has been supplied by a meat packing plant at Cuiaba* (inside the official Amazon region and virtually bordering rainforest areas of Rondonia, a region devastated by cattle ranching). (*Admitted in the statement of the Managing Director of the Braslo process plant, McDonald's sole supplier of burgers in Brazil since 1982).

(5) McDONALD'S GUATEMALA BEEF FROM FORMER TROPICAL FOREST
The General Manager of McDonald's hamburger supplier in Guatemala (Procasa) has admitted that they use beef from regions "deforested in the 1940's and early 1950's". (Statement 7 June 1993).

(6) BRAZILIAN SOYA FEED FED TO EC CATTLE, DESPITE TROPICAL FOREST LINK
Brazilian exports of soya for cattle feed are controversial due to destruction of tropical forests for soya production. McDonald's have accepted that Germany in the 1980's was the main importer of Brazilian soya feed, most of which went to feed cattle in Bavaria - the source of McDonald's German beef supplies. (Statement of McDonald's witness). German beef has also been regularly supplied for McDonald's UK use (as accepted by David Walker of McKeys).


Defence witnesses will include:

Charles Secrett, Director of Friends of the Earth, who participated in meetings in 1985 between FoE and McDonald's regarding rainforest destruction.
David Rose, a journalist for the Observer who interviewed a McDonald's PR representative in 1993 concerning Costa Rican rainforest destruction.
George Monbiot, an expert on Brazilian Amazon deforestation.
Jean Carriere, an expert on Costa Rica.
Douglas Shane, an expert from the USA on how the US beef labelling system allows imported beef to be relabelled 'domestic beef' and then sold on to others including fast food chains.
Ronnie Cummins, an expert from the USA on Guatemala and Costa Rica.
Howard Lyman, former cattle rancher of 20 years experience, from Montana (USA). He will give evidence on the methods and effects of cattle ranching in the USA.
The court is open to press and public, most days from 10.30am, at Court 35, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2 - ring the McLibel office for details.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes To Editors

(1) The McLibel Trial is a mammoth legal battle between the $26 billion a year McDonald's Corporation and two supporters of London Greenpeace - Helen Steel (30) and Dave Morris (41) - who between them have an annual income of less than £7,000. McDonald's are suing Steel & Morris for libel over a factsheet produced by London Greenpeace, entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's", which McDonald's allege they distributed in 1989/90.

(2) The Trial began on 28th June 1994 and became the longest civil case in British history in December 1995. A total of approximately 180 UK and international witnesses are giving evidence in court about the effects of the company's operations on the environment, on human health, on millions of farmed animals, on the Third World, and on McDonald's' own staff. They include environmental and nutritional experts, trade unionists, animal welfare experts, McDonald's employees, top executives, and four infiltrators employed by McDonald's. The Trial is set to run until Summer 1996.

(3) Steel & Morris were denied their right to a jury trial and, with no right to Legal Aid, are forced to conduct their own defence against McDonald's team of top libel lawyers.

(4) After McDonald's issued leaflets nationwide calling their critics liars, the Defendants Helen Steel and Dave Morris took out a counterclaim for libel against McDonald's which is running concurrently with McDonald's libel action.

(5) At the time of the first anniversary of the Trial (June 1995), it was widely reported that McDonald's had initiated secret settlement negotiations with Steel & Morris. They twice flew members of their US Board of Directors to London to meet with the Defendants to seek ways of ending the case. McDonald's are clearly very worried about the way the case is going for them and the bad publicity they are receiving.

(6) Over 1.5 million "What's Wrong With McDonald's" leaflets have been handed out to the public in the UK alone since the action was started and thousands of people have pledged to continue circulating the leaflets whatever the verdict. It's clear that McDonald's aim of suppressing the leaflet has totally backfired."

- ENDS -

above documents found @;
http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/news/rainforest.html

Just a random query -- but consumers make these business practices possible.

Is Walmart evil? Well stop shopping there.

Is McDonald's bad for the environment? Don't eat there.

A corporation's single goal is to maximise profits, if consumers stop patronizing a business, that business will change whatever it is the consumers don't like.

So don't blame McDonalds, blame the people that actually eat that shit. It just so happens we're in a quantity v. quality society, and so...

McDonalds is an all encompassing representation of Western Capitalism in all its despicable glory. from its exploitive treatment of its workers to its devastation of the rainforest to its support for the most disgusting treatment of animals only to peddle a product to the poor that is essentially poison under the guise of food, McDonalds is a destructive presence wherever its golden arches infect a community. so yeah the destruction of mcdonalds is something we should try to achieve and it is not at all surprising that they took the olympics a an opportunity to market their shit some more, but what exactly did you do to fight back? mcdonalds makes $22 billion a year and has over 30,000 restaurants and you broke the windows and a camera of one in the most left leaning city in the U.S. you think mcdonalds felt that shit? you may as well be emptying the ocean by putting your face in the water and sucking. vandalism on this level would only be effective against a small business. your wasting your time. mcdonalds headquarters is in Oak Brook Illinois and a much better focal point for your energy. not enough gas money? go smash the windows in cafe brazil, theyre anti labor. otherwise, ill see you back in 7th grade.

wal mart and mcdonalds feed of the growing economic disparity between the rich and poor. their competitive prices result from a race to the bottom in which outsourcing to countries with even less regard for workers than ours allows their profits to soar while the price of their product drops. they meet this in the same trend following other corporations that use their economic might to shell out poverty wages to the employees they overwork and exploit leaving them no other choice but to shop and eat at the cheapest places available. unlike you they dont get the option of shopping at new leaf and padegonia you fuck.

And if that's the case, explain how vandalism does anything to address white privilege or the predatory nature of capitalism? Do you alternate between organizing workers by day and throwing rocks at night? If so, then maybe you're credible, if not, you're an idiot for thinking breaking windows or whatever actually accomplishes anything.

Remember: if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail...

Mike Rotkin wrote;

"mcdonalds makes $22 billion a year and has over 30,000 restaurants and you broke the windows and a camera of one in the most left leaning city in the U.S. you think mcdonalds felt that shit? you may as well be emptying the ocean by putting your face in the water and sucking. vandalism on this level would only be effective against a small business. your wasting your time."

Wasting time? Hardly as wasteful as trying to discredit these actions as meaningless! To the contrary, this simple strategy will be far more likely to gain popularity as it is easy and can be done alone!

Yes, and 30,000 McDonalds restaurants located nearly everywhere means that there is no shortage of targets either! Every little bit o' action helps, and the point of stone throwing through McDonald's windows is that customers will get nervous about eating there, or question why some people were so oppossed to McDonalds. Over time, they may reconsider their choices of eating locations. Replacing windows also costs the franchise, so there is an effect on their profit, however small..

Stone throwing is also easy to do and less likely to result in a nationwide manhunt as would be the case of explosives or really expensive damages. Certainly the stone throwers should use caution and have their escape route fully mapped, though it will be easier to get away with and less clues left behind..

Anyone can do this stone throwing action alone, so that rules out any testimony from partners as happened with the green scare trials where so many people testified against their comrades. If one lone individual throws a few stones at their local McDonalds, they only need to worry about being spotted by strangers or making the mistake of bragging about it afterwords. Silence is golden (not like the arches though)..

Then the idea is for this sort of lower scale action to be multiplied at the 30,000 McDonalds restaurants everywhere, and then we may see some effects..

The problem with tossing a rock through a window is how do you tell it was a statement against the corporate animal killing machine or some rowdy teenagers?

Just Me asked;

"was a statement against the corporate animal killing machine or some rowdy teenagers?"

(Referring to the recent action at McDonalds)

Maybe here is where we could focus on the choice of targets instead of the identity of the stone throwers? In this case, and hopefully the 30,000 future ones, the identities of the stone throwers should matter less, and the choice of targets should matter more..

My opinion is entirely too many people are behind bars for "making statements" and working with unstable partners who turn them in once caught and maybe we need more effective smaller scale "lone lobo" actions against such numerous targets like McDonalds (and if by chance there is no golden arches in your neighborhood, BK is another perfect substitute!)

No bragging, no making statements, no trusted friends or comrades, only one stone thrower per action who is able to get away without getting caught, then multiply that by 30,000!!

ok, lets say that you succeed in getting people to stop eating at mcdonalds in santa cruz because they are scared that someone keeps breaking windows, be that someone drunk high school kids or an anarchist with no affinity group/ friend circle. the drop in business combined with the cost of dealing with constant vandalism and fewer costumers might cause mcdonalds headquarters to decide to close the location. one down, 29,999 to go so you better get on saving for airplane tickets to places like Nigeria and Iceland. but if youre depending on other's to autonomously take up your cause, you have only insured the destruction of one restaurant. so now workers are out of jobs they no doubt depended on (nobody toils in fastfood for fun) and more people are eating at burger king. way to fight back against capitalist exploitation.
you know what i really think? you're a fucking narc! you're posting bullshit about how we should all go to this specific location to conduct repeated radical acts of vandalism that could be alleged as terrorism without any real destruction. fuck you narc

No, Mike Rotkin, calling me a narc will not silence me either! Seems like ad hominem attacks are the last resort of an individual on the losing side of an arguement!!

No, i never stated people should go to the same location, the 30,000 means ANY McDonalds anywhere, not just limited to Santa Cruz. Who said we had to travel to Nigeria, Iceland or France? There's plenty of people like Jose Bove overseas who are capable of dismantling McDonalds themselves, we've got plenty of targets here in the good ol' U.S. to occupy ourselves!!

background on Bove;

"It is the morning of February 15, 2001, and Bové, 47, and his nine (virtually unnoticed) co-defendants are appealing their sentences for criminal vandalism convictions, charges resulting from a 1999 protest in which a McDonald’s under construction just outside the farming village of Millau was disassembled, bolt by bolt, and carted away. Bové, sentenced to three months in prison, is unapologetic. He took apart the McDonald’s to protest American imperialism, its trade policies, and the general, noxious spread of malbouffe. Malbouffe, Bové has said, "implies eating any old thing, prepared in any old way . . . both the standardization of food like McDonald’s––the same taste from one end of the world to the other––and the choice of food associated with the use of hormones and GMOs [genetically modified organisms], as well as the residues of pesticides and other things that can endanger health."

Needless to say, the McDonald’s Corporation was not amused—and is still not amused. "We are so the wrong target," says company spokesman Brad Trask from global headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. "Our French outlets are virtually entirely locally sourced and Bové knows that quite well. You’ll find no better supporter of local agriculture than us." Besides, Trask sniffs, "Bové is a gentleman farmer who got his farm by squatting and falling into it."

The McDonald’s dismantling was a perfect media event. There was Bové on televison, lugging around a broken McDonald’s sign bigger than he was. There was the parade of farm vehicles loaded with debris, which was gently deposited on the lawn of local government offices. There were women cheerfully passing out locally made Roquefort snacks to passersby.

"You see," Bruno Rebelle, director of Greenpeace France, says, "in the United States, food is fuel. Here, it’s a love story."
"
continue reading @;
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Bove-Dismantled-McDonalds.htm

Am simply making a positive statement about the methods used against McDonalds in Santa Cruz as they can be easily duplicated by anyone without investing in incendiary devices or other complicated planning..

To Mike Rotkin and others who dislike throwing stones through McDonalds windows, there are plenty of other legal ways to expose McDonalds also, why not try these instead methods of putting down this action??

When we can use violence, and hopefully force people to do what we think they should?..

These tactics seem eerily similar to those of that police state I'm always hearing about...

Why have these type of actions become more prevalent in Santa Cruz in recent months? Is there a single group of people involved in all of these seemingly separate incidents? Smells like Cointelpro to me. We already know UCSC and SAW (Students Against War) are "on the list". Anyhow that's the best explanation I can come up with unless someone has a better one.