Maccas’ uncivil action

McDonald’s have launched civil action against eight protesters of a small town in Victoria, who have delayed construction of a 24-hour drive-thru.

The eight protesters in Tecoma have been issued Supreme Court injunctions demanding damages, estimated to be $325,000.

Earlier last month, work began on the site but demolition was thwarted by hundreds of protesters on the land and on top of the roof of an old dairy set to be torn down.

McDonald’s filed a planning application in 2011 for a restaurant in Tecoma, a small foothill township in the Dandenong Ranges with a population of just over 2,000.

“We believe this would be the closest McDonald’s to a national park in Australia – approximately one kilometre from the Dandenong Ranges,” said protester Karl Williams.

The planning application was met with a record 1,170 written objections and was unanimously rejected by the Shire of Yarra Ranges Council until a State Government agency overruled its decision.

“Corporations like McDonald’s with deep pockets treat council decisions like a minor nuisance and go straight to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal,” said Mr Williams.

“What makes these Supreme Court orders novel and why they’ve caused concern in the legal world is that we are so-called representatives for an unnamed group of people who might have trespassed or impeded access to the site.

“Although many hundreds of people have been involved [in the protest], eight have been singled out and essentially served with a SLAPP suit.”

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is designed to intimidate, censor and silence detractors by saddling them with the costs of a legal defence until they abandon their action.

“They’ve spent about half a million dollars [on this civil action], which is very difficult to try and counter,” said Mr Williams.

The ‘Tecoma 8’ had been the most vocal in their opposition to the restaurant, holding interviews with news broadcasters and using social media to generate weight behind their campaign.

“All of the ‘Tecoma 8’ featured at some point in the media – we assume McDonald’s aimed writs at them as they were easily identifiable,” said ‘No Maccas in Tecoma’ spokesperson, Garry Muratore.

“Seven of the eight [protesters] had already been charged by police with minor offences – mainly trespass, and in one case a traffic offence.”

McDonald’s decision to file a civil suit against the protesters was made after the eight had been charged with criminal offences.

“The court has the power to order compensation from protesters who have been convicted of criminal offences,” said Secretary of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Stephen Blanks. “Therefore McDonald’s have gone overboard with their civil case.

“McDonald’s is not acting like good corporate citizens and these civil cases demonstrate that it does not wish to have good community relations. Their legal action is an expression of contempt to the community.”

Mr Williams said McDonald’s civil case restricts the movements of those involved, hinders free speech and intimidates the wider community.

“The eight [protesters] are battling a temporary Supreme Court injunction which sought and achieved restrictions on access to the site and limitations on what we can say,” he said.

“Those restrictions on free speech and the right to protest are Supreme Court orders, which if breached, would mean we would be in contempt of court.”

Opposition to the restaurant in Victoria harks back to earlier struggles in the 1980s and 90s in Sydney with developments on King St in Newtown and a proposed restaurant in the Centennial Parklands.

“I strongly opposed the development of a McDonald’s in Moore Park since it was first put to South Sydney Council in 1995,” said Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore.

“For more than seven years I worked with the community to fight repeated attempts to develop part of our parkland into a fast-food outlet.”

The ‘No Maccas in Tecoma’ campaign organised a door knock of every household in the town – almost 1,200 – and asked ‘Are you for or against the proposal?’ The survey found that 92 per cent of locals are opposed to the development.

“Whatever you say about McDonald’s, it just does not belong here,” said Mr Williams.

The action taken by the fast-food chain is reminiscent of the McLibel case in the UK, which saw McDonald’s sue two activists for distributing leaflets entitled: “What’s Wrong With McDonald’s?”

The notorious 2004 Gunns case also set a relevant precedent.

Twenty citizens, activists and organisations campaigned to save Tasmania’s forests and were sued by logging company Gunns Ltd for actions it claimed damaged their reputation.

The case collapsed after almost six years,  resulting in a loss to Gunns Ltd of over $4 million.

Julian Burnside QC, who represented a defendant in the Gunns case, was recently approached by the ‘Tecoma 8’ and is unable to comment.

McDonald’s were contacted for comment but did not respond.