Trafigura guilty of transporting and dumping toxic waste

[removeduser_487563287433]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-10735255

I last posted about Trafigura in October 2009, when they employed their lawyers, Carter-Ruck, to impose a super gagging order on the press. A super gag is where not only are the press prevented from reporting the matter, but they are prevented from saying they have been gagged. Furthermore if a gagging order is leveled on one body of the press it is taken as to apply on all of them.

Shockingly what Trafigura and Carter-Ruck had gagged The Guardian from reporting was a question tabled to be asked by a Member of Parliament regarding the investigation into Trafigura dumping tonnes of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast. That's right, the British press were gagged by an oil company from reporting on what a British MP was talking about in our own Parliament. It was probably the biggest attack on British democracy last year (and that's saying something with New Labour then in power).

Here's the summary I posted last year:

There's a bit of a backstory to this. Without boring you too much with the details in 2006 a London based oil trading firm, Trafigura, (allegedly, in the way the Pope is allegedly Catholic) dumped tonnes of chemical waste around Abidjan in Ivory Coast. In the weeks following tens of thousands of residents began complain of similar symptoms, including diarrhoea, sickness and breathing difficulties.

Group action was taken against the company in Feburary 2007 on behalf of tens of thousands of Ivorians. Trafigura denied the allegations, but paid the Ivorian Government £100 million to clean up the waste. The company blames a local contractor, the heads of which are jailed.

In May 2009 Newsnight reported on documents detailing the cargo, including its hazardous nature. Trafigura responds by suing the BBC for libel.

That brings us up to last month, when the Guardian uncovered Trafigura's internal emails, indicating staff were aware that disposal of the waste could be hazardous. You can see these documents here. In the same week the company agrees to pay compensation of £1000 to all 30,000 people injured by their dumping.



So that is the situation. Two days ago, though, I got to work and there was a lot of rumour about the going ons of Trafigura and their legal firm, Carter-Ruck. The media offered no enlightenment, but we soon found out what was going on.

The Guardian ran a front page story on how it had been served a gag order by Carter-Ruck on the matter of a Parliamentary Question that had been filed for the next week. They couldn't reveal when the question was to be asked, who was to ask it or what it was about. They were set to appeal the gag in the High Court the next day.

Amazingly what the Guardian had been prevented from reporting was an oral question tabled by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly to Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw;

"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."

Now, I'm sure you realise why this matter is entirely appalling. Not only is it an outright attempt of an unethical, practically criminal company to cover its tracks, but it is a shocking contravention of Parliamentary priviledge and the freedom of the press. Never before has the media been stopped reporting to the people of Britain the events happening in their own Parliament in open session.

Fortunately, however, the little information that the Guardian was allowed to print was enough for people on Twitter to discover the Parliamentary Question that the gag order referred to and in a matter of hours it must have become the most read Parliamentary Question in years. This is a manual in how to up PR.

In the following 16 hours, through Twitter, word was spread, a "silent" protest was organised for Thursday 15th October outside Carter-Ruck's offices and people like Stephen Fry, Graham Lineham and Charlie Brooker were spreading the story among their hundreds of thousands of followers.



Yesterday, an hour before the Guardian was set to appear in the High Court, Carter-Ruck dropped the gagging order, and the scandal became common knowledge.

It may not be the Iranian protests, but its amazing how Twitter is showing such value so early in its lifetime. I believe its probably the most significant development for democracy for decades.

Good news is that at least the Dutch have their country in order. A Dutch Court has found Trafigura guilty of transporting toxic waste from Amsterdam. Unfortunately it is only a fine of 1 million euros, but this is the first criminal conviction that Trafigura has faced and god willing more will follow. Hopefully the Libel Reform campaign will also succeed with the support of the coalition government and the press will be more at liberty to report crimes of this nature in the future in the UK.

[Bernem]

they should be charged to pay the medical treatment of the affected people for their whole life!

[removeduser_487563287433]

And then some. The executives in the emails who showed knowledge of the waste's toxicity should be jailed.

[charles the hammer]

Wow and you cant even talk about it weird.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well, we can now. The Guardian rather bravely (considering how many hundreds of thousands of pounds it has lost recently in defending itself from libel claims) ran a front page hinting at the situation, saying that they were "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. The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck."

Since only one Parliamentary Question was tabled mentioning Carter-Ruck this was enough information for the general public to discover what it was all about, and an hour before the Guardian was due to appeal the gagging order in the High Court Carter-Ruck withdrew it. By then it was common public knowledge, and a catastrophe for the lawyers and their evil masters.

[charles the hammer]

Well, we can now. The Guardian rather bravely (considering how many hundreds of thousands of pounds it has lost recently in defending itself from libel claims) ran a front page hinting at the situation, saying that they were "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. The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck."

Since only one Parliamentary Question was tabled mentioning Carter-Ruck this was enough information for the general public to discover what it was all about, and an hour before the Guardian was due to appeal the gagging order in the High Court Carter-Ruck withdrew it. By then it was common public knowledge, and a catastrophe for the lawyers and their evil masters.

good to hear but a rather weird incident.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Is it, though? If this happened all the time, how would you know?

[charles the hammer]

Is it, though? If this happened all the time, how would you know?

You got me there. But I guess it would most likely follow the same pattern as this story.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I think this was a rather unique case in that it was a Parliamentary Question that was gagged. This was a gross violation of freedom of speech, and hence why the Guardian got away with challenging it so openly.

But other super gagging orders are going to involve other things less so in the public sphere, and harder to expose.

[Their Law]

1 million isn't nearly enough to stop them from continuing to dump the waste. They probably make that in an hour.

[removeduser_487563287433]

1 million isn't nearly enough to stop them from continuing to dump the waste. They probably make that in an hour.

Mmm but the crime they've been convicted of here is bring the waste into Amsterdam on the way to Ivory Coast, so hopefully this is the first step.

[magpie]

Good report Ferrets. To many of these powerful lobby groups getting away with their murderous activities, and gagging parliament and the freedom of the press, makes one wonder just who is in charge of the country.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Lobbying doesn't come into this, it's not that subtle. It's wholesale bullying of the press, the crushing of parliamentary priveledge, the quashing of freedom of speech and hell, if that doesn't get you angry there's ten thousand Africans vomiting everywhere. This country affords to much protection to the powerful and that must end. Our libel and press laws are a disgrace to democracy.

[Lord Mandelson]

I usually associate this kind of thing with America. Disgusting.

Tell me, was it only the press that were complicit in the super-gag, or did the State play a part? I would guess from the question that the state was innocent (for once), but its nice to be sure that your own government doesn't conduct this kind of behaviour.

[Phier]

Reading the story there is an amazing lack of details still. Basically it seems the company didn't want to pay the clean up costs of a ship in Amsterdam and then got it done cheaper at the Ivory Coast.

What exactly was the chemical issue, who mishandled it, and how were children affected. I say children due to the random picture of a child with a skin condition in the original quoted story.

At this point it sounds like the company was taking advantage of lower safety standards in the Ivory Coast, which may be unethical but I"m not sure how its illegal.

I usually associate this kind of thing with America. Disgusting.

Examples?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Reading the story there is an amazing lack of details still. Basically it seems the company didn't want to pay the clean up costs of a ship in Amsterdam and then got it done cheaper at the Ivory Coast.

What exactly was the chemical issue, who mishandled it, and how were children affected. I say children due to the random picture of a child with a skin condition in the original quoted story.

At this point it sounds like the company was taking advantage of lower safety standards in the Ivory Coast, which may be unethical but I"m not sure how its illegal.



Examples?

You really don't bother reading anything provided, do you? Just like to wade straight in.

They didn't "clean" a ship. Detoxifying a ship is done is specialist dry docks - Trafigura were told it would have cost them 400,000 euros to do it in the Netherlands. This is not what happened - chemical waste was brought to the Ivory Coast where a local company was subcontracted to dump it. This other company has already been prosecuted, Phier. In the Ivory Coast, Phier. Trafigura has already paid millions to the Ivory Coast, Phier. This is not a matter of "lower safety standards". Try reading.

[Phier]

You really don't bother reading anything provided, do you? Just like to wade straight in.

They didn't "clean" a ship. Detoxifying a ship is done is specialist dry docks - Trafigura were told it would have cost them 400,000 euros to do it in the Netherlands. This is not what happened - chemical waste was brought to the Ivory Coast where a local company was subcontracted to dump it. This other company has already been prosecuted, Phier. In the Ivory Coast, Phier. Trafigura has already paid millions to the Ivory Coast, Phier. This is not a matter of "lower safety standards". Try reading.

Ah yes this is so very different than what I posted.

And of course this doesn't get into the meat of the issue at all, who handled what, or how people were affected. Thanks for playing though.

For those of you that prefer to get your facts before forming your opinion (and have access to BBC iPlayer) then Newsnight (originally threatened with our offensive libel laws by Trafigura) have covered the Trafigura scandal again. Their coverage includes the death toll of their dumping:

http://beta.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...ht_23_07_2010/

Wow, facts, see Ferrets that wasn't so hard now was it?

Only one problem, its localized content and 'not available in my area'. I'm not sure I can take your word there are really 'facts' there but I do hope so this time.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The press were not complicit in it whatsoever, they fought against it (although as I said Carter-Ruck surrended an hour before the Guardian was due in court). The state was not a part of it, as I have said an MP was set to ask the Justice Secretary a question on the matter.

[Lord Mandelson]

The press were not complicit in it whatsoever, they fought against it (although as I said Carter-Ruck surrended an hour before the Guardian was due in court). The state was not a part of it, as I have said an MP was set to ask the Justice Secretary a question on the matter.

How could a "super gag" be enforced if no-one was complicit in its enforcement? Is it the judiciary that upheld the super gag?

[removeduser_487563287433]

How could a "super gag" be enforced if no-one was complicit in its enforcement? Is it the judiciary that upheld the super gag?

Yes of course if the press didn't uphold it they would be in breach of the law.