• home • about • twitter • archives • subscribe • email •

‘London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations,’ have gagged the Guardian from reporting parliamentary proceedings. That’s the parliamentary proceedings that you and I are completely free to read by simply going to the online version of Hansard.

So why have lawyers stopped a newspaper publishing quotations from the record of our democracy? It’s all to do with a company called Trafigura and what it may or may not have got up to in Africa.

It seems the Guardian has been prevented from publishing this written parliamentary question tabled by Paul Farelly MP…

61 N Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

You can download your own copy of the Minton report from Wikileaks.

It appears that some or all of these slops were disposed of at waste sites in and around Abidjan, Ivory Coast approximately in August 2006. This is alleged to have caused, or in part contributed to, a high incidence of health problems being reported, including nausea, breathing difficulties, vomiting, diarrhea.

Read section 3 in particular – ‘Health and Environmental impacts’ – all kinds of horrible stuff were involved.

Nick Barlow has more, as do many others. There’s also much being said on Twitter (if you want to Twitter about this, use the #Trafigura hashtag – it’s currently trending on Twitter’s front page). You might also be tempted to blog about Trafigura.

This is what Trafigura doesn’t want you to know. Now you do. If they hadn’t gone running to their lawyers, it’s very possible you wouldn’t. The Streisand is well and truly out of the bag.

More background:

Independent: Call for murder charges to be brought over toxic dumping

The settlement of the High Court case, expected to be finalised within weeks, concerns claims by victims who suffered short-term illnesses. But it does not apply to allegations, which will now not be tested in the British courts, that the dumped waste caused more serious problems, including deaths, miscarriages and birth defects.

Video: Newsnight – Dirty tricks and toxic waste in Ivory Coast

George Monbiot (on September 17): Trafigura’s attempts to gag the media prove that libel laws should be repealed

In Britain, libel (or defamation) is used as the rich man’s sedition law, stifling criticism and exposure of all kinds of malpractice. Dating back to the 13th century, it was reframed during the past 200 years specifically to protect wealthy people from criticism, based on the presumption that any derogatory remark made about a gentleman must be false. The law of defamation is the only British instrument which places the burden of proof on the defendant. Given the inordinate costs involved, it’s not surprising that it discourages people from investigating abuses of power.

Guardian: How UK oil company Trafigura tried to cover up African pollution disaster

The UN human rights special rapporteur, Professor Okechukwu Ibeanu, criticised Trafigura for potentially “stifling independent reporting and public criticism” in a report the oil trader tried and failed to prevent being published in Geneva this week.

He wrote: “According to official estimates, there were 15 deaths, 69 persons hospitalised and more than 108,000 medical consultations … there seems to be strong prima facie evidence that the reported deaths and adverse health consequences are related to the dumping.”

Ministry of Truth: TRAFIGURA AND THE MINTON REPORT

The concentrated sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) is one, as anyone coming into contact with it on the waste dump would be likely to suffer severe chemical burns to the skin or lungs, from vapour inhalation, and as, I’m afraid to say, scavenging from waste dumps is not that uncommon a practice in the developing world… Do I really need to spell out the rest?

Greenpeace: Trafigura background

On July 2, 2006, the Probo Koala (chartered by Trafigura) attempted to unload waste in Amsterdam. Noting the strong-smelling nature of the waste and probable toxic nature, harbour authorities told the ship that the waste would be more expensive to dispose of. The ship refused to pay extra treatment costs and left Amsterdam…

Econsultancy: Social media turns toxic avenger for The Guardian (#trafigura)

This tidal wave of tweets makes for particularly bad PR, given the banning order against the newspaper. It’s a bit like an artist achieving a Radio 1 ban, which can result in chart success. What you seek to suppress only generates further interest.

Update @ 13.00: Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has just posted this to Twitter:

Victory! #CarterRuck caves-in. No #Guardian court hearing. Media can now report Paul Farrelly’s PQ about #Trafigura. More soon on Guardian…

Wikileaks: Ivory Coast toxic dumping report behind secret Guardian gag

Statements made in parliament, including those of Paul Farrelly MP, traditionally enjoy an absolute exemption from molestation by the regular judiciary. Parliament does not, insomuch as it believes itself to be an expression of the national will, subordinate itself to any other court.

Knowing this, lawyers for Trafigura, Carter-Ruck, obtained a second, secret media injuction to prevent reporting of Paul Farrely MP’s questions. That this alleged order was granted is a bold and dangerous move by the High Court towards the total privatization of censorship. Is a multi-billion pound commodities trader a truer expression of the national will than the House of Commons? The question is no longer rhetorical.

Wikileaks: The Independent: Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city, 17 Sep 2009

The PDF presents a copy of an article originally published in UK newspaper The Independent, but censored from the Independent’s website.

Well, it’ll save us all a walk to the local primary school next May, if nothing else. Screw the voters, the results of next year’s affront to democracy are in. Those who really matter have declared their verdict. Here’s state-funded gossip-monger, the BBC’s Nick Robinson…

Asked what Cam[eron] was going to focus on in his speech tomorrow, Robbo replied:

“Well, the Prime Minister will once again want to focus on the big issue that George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor was talking about..the deficit…”

And advertising-funded gossip-monger…

ITV’s Tom Bradby has called George Osborne “the Chancellor”.

Why else would Tories propagandists have the balls to start publishing this kind of guff.

‘We’re all in this together,’ said the heir to the Osborne baronetcy of Ballentaylor in his party conference speech – a previously undeclared hankering for inclusion (AKA ivory tower buck-passing). It’s just some of us are deeper in than others.

Remember this…?

Richard Timney has written a series of letters to the Redditch Advertiser, in the Home Secretary’s constituency, defending controversial plans for ID cards and attacking the Conservatives.

In the letters, Mr Timney fails to declare that he is married to Ms Smith or that he is paid £40,000 a year to act as her Parliamentary assistant. Ms Smith has kept her maiden name.

It was New Labour, of course, that made this practice – or astroturfing as it’s known – widespread in British politics. They didn’t invent it however and other people in other walks of life do it as well.

Here’s one example.

Jack Straw’s just been on Five Live and used the term ‘endemic corruption’ in the same sentence as ‘proportional representation’*. I think it’s safe to say that the Justice Secretary is not a fan of electoral reform.

It’s interesting however to cross reference the list of countries who use proportional representation with the Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy. Of the top 21 countries on the Index of Democracy, 18 use proportional representation. The three that don’t are Australia (at 10), United States (at 18) and the UK (at 21).

(Those three countries, by unhappy coincidence, were the only three to commit active troops to the invasion of Iraq.)

* I’ll dig out the exact quote when it’s online.

That’s how long it takes the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss electoral reform out of hand:

But it’s also why a Conservative government will not consider introducing proportional representation, as many participants in A New Politics have demanded. The principle underlying all the political reforms a Conservative government would make is the progressive principle of redistributing power and control from the powerful to the powerless. PR would actually move us in the opposite direction, which is why I’m so surprised it’s still on the wish-list of progressive reformers. Proportional representation takes power away from the man and woman in the street and hands it to the political elites. Instead of voters choosing their government on the basis of the manifestos put before them in an election, party managers would choose a government on the basis of secret backroom deals. How is that going to deliver transparency and trust?

It’s a thin argument even for this Blair-lite chancer who’s going to romp to victory at the next election on the sole merit of being perceived as slightly less shit than Gordon Brown (that’s a solid gold ticket right now, I’ll grant you).

(more…)

There is no place for dissenting views in mainstream politics. I was told recently by a Labour backbencher – a respected MP untainted by the expenses scandal – that “if the door was open just an inch to new ideas, I would stay on. But it has been slammed shut, so I’m resigning at the next election.” Our grossly unfair electoral system, which responds to the concerns of just a few thousand floating voters and shuts out the minor parties; the vicious crackdown on dissent within parliament by whips and spin doctors; the neoliberalism forced upon governments by corporate power and the Washington consensus; the terror of the tabloid press – all combine to create a political culture which cannot respond to altered realities without collapsing. What cannot be accommodated must be suppressed.

Read the rest

Most of us have had them by now. And we’ve all thought of stuff to do with them. The cat litter tray is a good idea, for example, as is the bin under a pile of rotting potato peelings. The smooth, shiny texture isn’t really absorbent enough to wipe your arse with, and there’s enough shit in the leaflet already without you needing to add to it. No, I knew there had to be some better, more creative thing to do.

Read the rest…

Were you one of the hundreds of people who sent an email to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights asking them to listen to former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray’s evidence on the UK government’s policy of using intelligence from torture?

It’s quite likely your public servants deleted it without even reading it.

The courage and morality of New Labour laid bare:

David Miliband and Jacqui Smith have both refused to appear before Parliament’s human rights committee to answer questions about allegations of British collusion in the torture of British citizens and residents detained during counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan.

In a move that dismayed members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), a joint letter from the foreign secretary and home secretary is also said to have failed to answer any of the eight questions that the committee asked about legal provisions offering MI5 officers immunity in the UK for crimes committed overseas

So that’s contempt for parliament, contempt for accountability and contempt for human rights. Quite the trilogy. It’s a rancid, stinking business. What more is there to say?

You have to admit it’s elegant. The Foreign Secretary who was instrumental in making the fraudulent case for an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed is now the Justice Secretary suppressing documents detailing the making of the fraudulent case for an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. That’s not a conflict of interest, that’s an apocalypse of interest.

Even better, Straw says he’s vetoing the release of 2003 cabinet minutes where the legality of the war was ‘discussed’ because they would do ’serious damage’ to cabinet government. What we know however, thanks to the Butler Inquiry is that, at the time, cabinet government was in the toilet.

Those cabinet ministers who weren’t complicit or compliant were silent and supine, while Tony Blair and an entourage of unelected placemen plotted a war crime. The ‘Justice’ version of Straw is merely protecting the right of cabinet ministers to be doormats for Prime Ministers to wipe their shitty shoes on.

Straw says if the minutes were released ministers would be inhibited from speaking out in cabinet meetings with their concerns if they knew they might be put into the public domain. What was the excuse in 2003?

‘The British government abhors torture and would never authorise it or condone it,’ says our fine, upstanding Foreign Secretary and moral paragon, David Miliband. But if a so-called ally in the so-called war against terror wants to soften a fellow up before we question him, well hey, what are you going to do?

But before we rush to judgment, let’s look at how useful the beatings and medieval torture have been…

Upon his return to England after more than four years inside Guantánamo, Mohamed will be taken to a secure, secret location in order for him to be fully rehabilitated by a team of volunteer doctors and psychiatrists. Mohamed will be kept under a “voluntary security arrangement” which involves reporting to the authorities, but he will not be subject to an anti-terror control order. His lawyers reiterate that he has nothing to hide after US terror charges against him were dropped last year.

So there we have it. That’s what mutilating a man’s genitals gets you – precisely bugger all intelligence and a cascade of revolting stories and testimony which, in a universe with proper system of morality, would see this government tossed into prison or one of the more disgusting circles of Dante’s Inferno. How’s them ‘Western Values’ working for you?

From today, anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence.

That is because of a new law – Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act – which has come into force.

What could possibly go wrong?

Did you know you can’t insure nuclear reactors and their decommissioning processes? The commercial insurance companies just won’t touch them. The costs of cleaning up a major nuclear accident are so huge they would bankrupt any company stupid enough to offer cover.

So governments have to step in and offer to pay the costs in the event of an accident. That’s what New Labour did over the summer while Parliament was in recess and MPs were on holiday.

However, doing so involved a circumvention of the democratic niceties – which isn’t uncommon when it comes to dealings with the nuclear industry. But this particular dirty, backroom deal might be back to bite the government:

A government decision to rush through a scheme indemnifying a US-led private consortium who took over Sellafield from any liability for a nuclear accident is to be investigated, the Speaker of the Commons, Michael Martin.

He has accepted a complaint from Paul Flynn, the Labour MP for Newport, that former energy minister Malcolm Wicks had not properly consulted MPs when he granted the consortium, made up of the American company URS Washington, French firm Areva and the UK company Amec, an indemnity.

[...]

The consortium had threatened to walk away unless Britain waived its rights to charge companies the first £140m for the costs of any accident.

You see this kind of thing all over the world – rigged public consultations, a blurring between the roles of politician and nuclear lobbyist, and – as in this case – the blackmailing of governments.

The added bonus for this consortium? The British taxpayer will fork out even if the accidents are the fault of the consortium itself. It’s a sweet deal to be sure. Whether you’re for or against nuclear power, though, surely you can agree that this isn’t the way to do things. It doesn’t do the already poor reputations of nuclear energy or politics any favours.

(Cross-posted at Nuclear Reaction)

A message from Unlock Democracy:

—

On Thursday, the Government sneaked out the draft of the innocuous sounding “Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order.” This “statutory instrument” (not an act), if passed, will

“…change the scope of the application of the [Freedom of Information] Act in relation to information held by the House of Commons and House of Lords regarding expenditure in respect of Members of both Houses. This includes information held by either House about expenses claimed by and allowances paid to Members. Such information is no longer within the scope of the Act.”

In short, they intend to exempt the expenses of MPs and Lords from the Freedom of Information Act and thereby close them to public scrutiny. This is to be passed almost a year to the day after the Derek Conway scandal erupted, when it emerged that the MP had been paying his sons as research staff while they were at university, despite not being able to demonstrate that they had actually done any work for him. If the Government gets away with this, scandals such as this will be allowed to continue and we will not be permitted to find out about them.

It is completely outrageous that the Government should seek to do this at all, let alone in such an underhand manner. The Government is planning to put us all on a national identity database, force us to carry identity cards, keep the DNA of millions of innocent people on a database and to read all our emails, phone and internet records regardless of whether we are supposed to have done anything wrong. Their argument is always “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” Why, then, is it one rule for us and another rule for politicians?

What’s more, when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, one of his first acts was to publish the Governance of Britain Green Paper which asserted that “It is right that Parliament should be covered by the [Freedom of Information] Act.”

This proposal is going to be debated in the House of Commons this Thursday – we don’t have much time. For this reason I am strongly urging you to do the following as a matter of urgency:

• Write to your MP (use www.writetothem.com) and urge them “to sign the Early Day Motion “Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009 (Jo Swinson MP)” – the text of this motion is below for your reference.
• Phone your MP’s office (the main switchboard is 020 7219 3000) and ask to talk to him or her to ask them to oppose this proposal.
• If you are on Facebook, join our group and invite all your friends to join – ESPECIALLY the ones not normally interested in politics.
• Forward this article to everyone you know either by email or any social bookmarking websites you use.

Please, please do this as soon as you can. We can defeat this proposal if we put pressure on MPs this week. In 2007, a group of backbench MPs attempted to get a similar proposal passed. We beat them then and we can beat them again.

With best wishes,

Peter Facey

Director, Unlock Democracy

TEXT OF EARLY DAY MOTION

Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009

Primary Sponsor: Jo Swinson (LD, East Dunbartonshire)

That this House notes with concern the provisions in the Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009 to exempt remove the expenses of Members of Parliament and Peers from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act’; notes that this order will single out MPs and Peers in a special category as the only paid public officials who will note have to disclose full details of their expenses; notes with concern the regressive effect of this Order on Parliamentary transparency and the detrimental impact it will have on Parliament in the eyes of the public; calls on Ministers to block or repeal the Order in the interest of MPs’ and Peers’ accountability to members of the public.

—

The parliamentary vote on this is tomorrow – we have 24 hours.

Update @ 14.30: Via Redpesto in the comments we have:

The government has shelved plans to hold a vote on controversial proposals to restrict the amount of information published about MPs’ expenses.

Of course, none of this fuss is the government’s fault…

Ms Harman said the vote had been abandoned because of the “lack of cross party support” and confirmed she would hold further discussions on how to proceed.

Denial is still a river in Africa.

And no, one of them isn’t ‘off’ in response to his staggeringly half-arsed plan to censor the Internet.

The two words are prior restraint.

Still, Mr Burnham can scratch the itch of his technocratic authoritarianism all he likes but if this plan actually happens (who decides what’s ‘unacceptable’ and what isn’t? Does every website in the world have to join a queue to have a rating applied? Doesn’t Burnham know that technology already exists to protect children from inappropriate content?), I’ll show my bum in the window of Marks and Spencer.

The fact that Burnham had to wait until the Saturday between Christmas and New Year to get himself a hearing on this should tell you all you need to know about how seriously to take him.

The government lovingly and gently lowers our wedding tackle into American hands…

The UK Atomic Weapons Establishment, which makes and maintains the warheads for Britain’s nuclear missiles, has come under the control of US companies after the government sold its one-third stake.

Ministers were accused Thursday night of trying to conceal the change in ownership after failing to make an announcement to parliament.

So let’s not have any more of this nonsense – Here’s Gordon Brown in 2006:

And I mean not just stability by securing low inflation but stability in our industrial relations, stability through a stable and competitive tax regime, and stability through a predictable and light touch regulatory environment – a stability founded on our strength to make the right long term decisions, the same strength of national purpose we will demonstrate in protecting our security in this Parliament and the long-term – strong in defence in fighting terrorism, upholding NATO, supporting our armed forces at home and abroad, and retaining our independent nuclear deterrent.

(Actually, there’s hardly any of that paragraph that doesn’t deserve a shoeing.)

So shadow Home Office minister Damian Green is nicked after publishing leaked Home Office documents. That being the case, and in the spirit of fairness that Gordon Brown bangs on about all the bloody time, I take it we can look forward to every single cabinet minister having their offices turned over by anti-terrorism police. You know, if we’re expecting everyone to be treated even-handedly. Democracy and stuff, yeah?

After all, a leak is a leak is a leak whether it’s in the government’s favour or not. Does anybody think that, if the substance of the information leaked to Green had been ‘everything’s rosey at the Home Office’, he’d have had nine policemen standing around him yesterday?

Green was arrested for ‘aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in public office’. That’s the subheading to the history of New Labour if ever there was one.

Appropriately enough, the anti-Barack Obama decided upon today of all days to stick her head above the parapet and talk about something she clearly has absolutely no knowledge of whatsoever. I’m talking of course about the walking, talking, Labour-vote destroying robot which is Hazel Blears. Hazel Blears deciding to talk about political disengagement is a little like getting David Irving to talk about the problem of Holocaust denial…

Read the rest…

I knew someone would eventually put the irrefutable case against ID cards and their attendant database in such simple and stark terms, I just can’t believe it’s the Prime Minister that’s done it…

Gordon Brown admitted yesterday that ministers can never guarantee the security of sensitive data…

Killer fact! Every time somebody argues in favour of ID cards, just quote Gordon Brown at them.

So, 42 days is no more but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still be worried about the dog’s breakfast that remains of the anti-terror bill currently being rammed through Parliament. Here’s Marcel Berlins in the Guardian:

The main objection is to clause 77, which would give a home secretary the power to order that an inquest be held without a jury if he or she believes that evidence given should not be made public “a) in the interests of national security, b) in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country, or c) otherwise in the public interest”. For instance, a home secretary could decide that an inquest into the death of a British soldier killed by friendly fire be held without a jury, because the evidence disclosed might make the US cross with the UK; or that it was against the public interest for us to know about the police’s behaviour when they killed Jean Charles de Menezes. There are circumstances in which sensitive information ought not to be made public; but the government’s plan is overkill, gives the home secretary too much power and greatly reduces the public’s right to know the truth about suspicious and controversial deaths.

It’s a familiar New Labour trick actually so we shouldn’t be too outraged, merely wearily cynical. This isn’t about fixing the problem, it’s about shutting people up talking about the problem.

We’ve seen it with regard to whistleblowers and we know the government hates it when someone points out that they were culpable in the deaths of soldiers in the field.

So what’s the solution? A wholesale purging of the stinking practices that inspire whistleblowers to speak out? More money and equipment for soldiers so we have fewer preventable deaths? Nah, don’t be so bloody stupid. It’s prosecution for one and cover-up for the other.

All this public fuss over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes? An accident of history and legislation. Don’t expect to see it again.

About turn, quick march: Like, wow:

The government will not pursue a clause in its controversial counter-terrorism bill to allow inquests to be held in private due to “national security”.

Is it gone for good or hiding like a rake in the grass, ready to pop up later…?

…it’s done. Victory:

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has told MPs that plans to extend terror detention to 42 days will be dropped from the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

It follows a heavy defeat for the government in the House of Lords, which threw out the plan by 309 votes to 118.

And the fall-back position to save a scrap of face?

Ms Smith said instead the measure would be in a separate piece of legislation to be brought to Parliament if needed.

Emergency legislation to be used when there’s an emergency, in other words. Which prompts the question: why wasn’t that Plan A instead of Plan B? You know, if this wasn’t a pig-headed and empty show of machismo and a land-grab for extraordinary powers to be abused later on down the line.

Amnesty is worried that people in the UK may be sleepwalking into an assault on our basic civil liberties. The House of Lords debates 42 days today and is expected to vote against it, but with the Prime Minister still insisting that he will push through the 42-day proposals, we will keep on campaigning until it’s defeated once and for all.

We’re also holding a “mass sleepwalk” tonight through the streets of Leeds to launch the film – if you can make it to City Square in Leeds by 7.00pm come and join us and bring your dressing-gown and slippers! We’ll be joined by blogger and 7/7 bombing survivor Rachel North at the launch.

Sign the petition. Pass it on.

Gone?

Gordon Brown has been warned not to force through plans to allow terror suspects to be held for up to 42 days before charge, the BBC understands.

The plan scraped through the Commons and is due before the Lords next week, where it is expected to be defeated.

BBC political editor Nick Robinson says the PM has been warned by ministers it would be “politically suicidal” to push it through by using the Parliament Act.

Will Gordon dare slide another brick from his Jenga tower of a premiership? The bastard in me says it’s time for a pro-42 days campaign.

About turn: The BBC webmonkeys, in their infinite wisdom and without a record of edits, have changed the story with the older version disappearing as if it had never existed. 42 days is very much still ‘on’ apparently.

Amnesty International have a petition against the planned extension of internment for suspected terrorists to 42 days.

A clever element of the petition is that signatories are sorted by post code and individual MPs will receive a version of the petition containing just their constituents who have signed.

Go and let your MP know you’re against 42 days internment. As Graham Linehan says, ‘42 days is not an interrogation. 42 days is a disappearance.’

You have to admit it’s genius:

The first identity cards from the government’s controversial national scheme are due to be revealed.

The biometric card will be issued from November, initially to non-EU students and marriage visa holders.

On the one hand, you have captive test specimens. As Phil Booth from NO2ID says:

They’ve basically picked on a group of people who have no possibility of objecting to the card – they either comply or they are out.

On the other hand, you have the tabloid reading, foreigner-hating classes. They’ll be unaffected by any cock-ups (and trust me there are going to be cock-ups) with the system and they’re not going to complain about a bunch of Johnny Foreigners having their lives dicked about with.