Tweet
“I am convinced there is dumping of solid waste, chemicals and probably nuclear (waste)…. There is no government (control) and there are few people with high moral ground,” Ould Abdallah added.
Allegations of waste dumping off Somalia by European companies have been heard for years, according to Somalia watchers. The problem was highlighted in the wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami when broken hazardous waste containers washed up on Somali shores.
See
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9363
It continues...
http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Guardi...oxic_waste_gag
Guardian still under secret toxic waste gag
From Wikileaks
Jump to: navigation, search
Wednesday October 14, 2009
WIKILEAKS EDITORIAL
Twitter did not save free speech — and free speech has not been saved.
Over the last 24 hours, a lot of self-congratulating hyperbole has appeared on and off line about how the popular short message service Twitter saved free speech in the UK.
This ill-informed back-patting follows the dropping of a secret UK High Court gag order blocking the Guardian's reporting of parliamentary questions by Paul Farrelly MP. Farrelly's questions related to press freedoms and in particular, a leaked WikiLeaks report, the so-called "Minton report" which exposed a toxic dumping disaster inflicted on the Ivory Coast by oil trading giant Trafigura, which is reported to have hospitalized over 100,000 people.
However, a more substantive secret gag order against the report, granted in September, entirely prevents the reporting of its contents and remains in effect. It is not the only one. Last month, the Guardian revealed that it had been served with 10 secret gag orders—so-called "super-injunctions"— since January. In 2008, the paper was served with six. In 2007, five. Haven't heard of these? Of course not, they are secret gag orders. The UK press has given up counting regular injunctions.
To understand the crucial events in this case, we need to go back to September when commodities giant Trafigura obtained the original "super injunction" preventing discussion of the leaked Minton report into the Ivory Coast disaster.
During September and the preceding months, investigative reporters from the Guardian, Norway's NRK TV, the Independent, the BBC's Newsnight, the Dutch press, Greenpeace and lawyers for the victims were collaborating to show Trafigura's culpability.
Trafigura knew the investigation teams had a copy of the Milton report, because journalists had asked the company to respond to the report's findings. Instead of providing a countering opinion, the company went to the High Court and obtained a secret injunction preventing journalists from telling the public anything at all about the document.
Although the Minton report is a merely a short engineering and legal assessment of the Ivory Coast disaster, no-doubt one among many, instead of commissioning it directly, the company "laundered" the report through its lawyers, Waterson & Hicks. This permitted Trafigura to claim legal privilege on the document should it leak; which is precisely what the company did.
An undisclosed UK High Court judge, who we can reveal to be Justice Maddison, accepted this parlour trick and on September 11 issued a broad gag order with secrecy previsions meaning the existence of the order itself could not be reported.
On September 14, WikiLeaks released the full Minton report in an attempt to subvert this wretched injunction. The UK press was then left in the Kafkaesque position where neither the Minton report, nor the injunction against it could be mentioned, despite the report appearing on the front page of WikiLeaks.
A few days later, in private correspondence with Norwegian journalists Synnøve Bakke and Kjersti Knudssøn from the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, another legal firm representing Trafigura shed some light on the injunction:
Since direct reports of parliamentary proceedings are largely exempt from libel laws in the UK (most recently under the 1996 Defamation Act), it is not uncommon for MPs to mention censored facts in order that newspapers will be able to directly quote their parliamentary speeches, and so reveal the information.
In an effort to draw attention to the abuses of secret gag orders, Paul Farrelly MP, a former Observer section editor, tabled the following question notice in the House of Commons, in the process, exposing two secret gag orders, including the one against the Minton report:
Justice Maddison was apparently so incensed at Paul Farrelly MP's attack on his earlier order, that a revised, and also secret, gag was granted to prevent press reportage of Farrelly's question — and the Secretary of State for Justice's answer.
That this extraordinary claim succeeded must have shocked Carter Ruck as much as much as anyone else. Its success is perharps a psychological reflection of the cletched teeth lawyer's joke "What's the difference between a High Court judge and God? God knows he's not a High Court judge".
The Guardian, who was the first subject of both gags, decided to make the second gag a national issue. David Leigh, lead author on the Trafigura story, wrote a carefully crafted story designed to inflame, and gave it substantial prominance on October 12 and 13.
Twitter then promoted the visibility of the Guardian article, the WikiLeaks copy of the gagged Minton report and the articles about the Commons' question. However there are only a few players who affected this case's inevitable legal conclusion.
The lesson for Carter Ruck and other lawyers: be careful what you wish for. Judges who feel their power threatened may agree to an ambit claim in order to salve their impotent rage.
Had Twitter not existed, we would have seen the same legal outcome, for such an affront to the UK political classes could never have survived the attentions of a national newspaper like the Guardian. However, the September 11 gag, which does not threaten the power of the political classes in the UK, continues, as do a vast number of other injunctions, acquired by those with unequal access to justice and something to hide.
Under pressure from legal costs, UK papers have silently removed some of the September 17 investigative articles into the dumping disater. For example, the Independent's "Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city" no-longer "exists" except at WikiLeaks.
Now is not the time to be distracted from this reality, or to see the unravelling of a gache attack on parliamentary reporting as step forward; it is a return to last week. We are back at the UK censorship status quo, which may be described, without irony, as privatized feudalism.
So take your hands from each other's backs, sharpen your (s)words—and get to work. The battle isn't over, however it may, be beginning.
(Julian Assange)
Allegations of waste dumping off Somalia by European companies have been heard for years, according to Somalia watchers. The problem was highlighted in the wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami when broken hazardous waste containers washed up on Somali shores.
See
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9363
It continues...
http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Guardi...oxic_waste_gag
Guardian still under secret toxic waste gag
From Wikileaks
Jump to: navigation, search
Wednesday October 14, 2009
WIKILEAKS EDITORIAL
Twitter did not save free speech — and free speech has not been saved.
Over the last 24 hours, a lot of self-congratulating hyperbole has appeared on and off line about how the popular short message service Twitter saved free speech in the UK.
This ill-informed back-patting follows the dropping of a secret UK High Court gag order blocking the Guardian's reporting of parliamentary questions by Paul Farrelly MP. Farrelly's questions related to press freedoms and in particular, a leaked WikiLeaks report, the so-called "Minton report" which exposed a toxic dumping disaster inflicted on the Ivory Coast by oil trading giant Trafigura, which is reported to have hospitalized over 100,000 people.
However, a more substantive secret gag order against the report, granted in September, entirely prevents the reporting of its contents and remains in effect. It is not the only one. Last month, the Guardian revealed that it had been served with 10 secret gag orders—so-called "super-injunctions"— since January. In 2008, the paper was served with six. In 2007, five. Haven't heard of these? Of course not, they are secret gag orders. The UK press has given up counting regular injunctions.
To understand the crucial events in this case, we need to go back to September when commodities giant Trafigura obtained the original "super injunction" preventing discussion of the leaked Minton report into the Ivory Coast disaster.
During September and the preceding months, investigative reporters from the Guardian, Norway's NRK TV, the Independent, the BBC's Newsnight, the Dutch press, Greenpeace and lawyers for the victims were collaborating to show Trafigura's culpability.
Trafigura knew the investigation teams had a copy of the Milton report, because journalists had asked the company to respond to the report's findings. Instead of providing a countering opinion, the company went to the High Court and obtained a secret injunction preventing journalists from telling the public anything at all about the document.
Although the Minton report is a merely a short engineering and legal assessment of the Ivory Coast disaster, no-doubt one among many, instead of commissioning it directly, the company "laundered" the report through its lawyers, Waterson & Hicks. This permitted Trafigura to claim legal privilege on the document should it leak; which is precisely what the company did.
An undisclosed UK High Court judge, who we can reveal to be Justice Maddison, accepted this parlour trick and on September 11 issued a broad gag order with secrecy previsions meaning the existence of the order itself could not be reported.
On September 14, WikiLeaks released the full Minton report in an attempt to subvert this wretched injunction. The UK press was then left in the Kafkaesque position where neither the Minton report, nor the injunction against it could be mentioned, despite the report appearing on the front page of WikiLeaks.
A few days later, in private correspondence with Norwegian journalists Synnøve Bakke and Kjersti Knudssøn from the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, another legal firm representing Trafigura shed some light on the injunction:
- Your questions of today do also reveal the fact that you are in possession of a draft, preliminary expert opinion produced by Minton Treharne & Davies Ltd, and that you appear to be ready to disclose information from this report. Trafigura looks very serious upon this, as disclosing any information from this report would be a clear breach of confidentiality and privilege. The report is clearly privileged and confidential and was obtained unlawfully by whoever is responsible for it coming into your possession. Please be aware that on Friday of last week, our clients sought and obtained an injunction in relation to this document and information contained in it against the Guardian newspaper and Persons Unknown, pending a further hearing.
Since direct reports of parliamentary proceedings are largely exempt from libel laws in the UK (most recently under the 1996 Defamation Act), it is not uncommon for MPs to mention censored facts in order that newspapers will be able to directly quote their parliamentary speeches, and so reveal the information.
In an effort to draw attention to the abuses of secret gag orders, Paul Farrelly MP, a former Observer section editor, tabled the following question notice in the House of Commons, in the process, exposing two secret gag orders, including the one against the Minton report:
- 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.[1]
Justice Maddison was apparently so incensed at Paul Farrelly MP's attack on his earlier order, that a revised, and also secret, gag was granted to prevent press reportage of Farrelly's question — and the Secretary of State for Justice's answer.
That this extraordinary claim succeeded must have shocked Carter Ruck as much as much as anyone else. Its success is perharps a psychological reflection of the cletched teeth lawyer's joke "What's the difference between a High Court judge and God? God knows he's not a High Court judge".
The Guardian, who was the first subject of both gags, decided to make the second gag a national issue. David Leigh, lead author on the Trafigura story, wrote a carefully crafted story designed to inflame, and gave it substantial prominance on October 12 and 13.
- The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.
Twitter then promoted the visibility of the Guardian article, the WikiLeaks copy of the gagged Minton report and the articles about the Commons' question. However there are only a few players who affected this case's inevitable legal conclusion.
- The investigative team of traditional media, Greenpeace, the victims' and everyone's lawyers.
- WikiLeaks, who released, and kept up, the report at the center of the injunction as well as the gag order.
The lesson for Carter Ruck and other lawyers: be careful what you wish for. Judges who feel their power threatened may agree to an ambit claim in order to salve their impotent rage.
Had Twitter not existed, we would have seen the same legal outcome, for such an affront to the UK political classes could never have survived the attentions of a national newspaper like the Guardian. However, the September 11 gag, which does not threaten the power of the political classes in the UK, continues, as do a vast number of other injunctions, acquired by those with unequal access to justice and something to hide.
Under pressure from legal costs, UK papers have silently removed some of the September 17 investigative articles into the dumping disater. For example, the Independent's "Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city" no-longer "exists" except at WikiLeaks.
Now is not the time to be distracted from this reality, or to see the unravelling of a gache attack on parliamentary reporting as step forward; it is a return to last week. We are back at the UK censorship status quo, which may be described, without irony, as privatized feudalism.
So take your hands from each other's backs, sharpen your (s)words—and get to work. The battle isn't over, however it may, be beginning.
(Julian Assange)
Comment