It’s great that the [Streisand Effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) has kicked in over the [Guardian parliament gag order](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament), that [#Trafigura](http://twitter.com/search?q=%23trafigura) is the top trending topic on Twitter, etc.
But I’ve still not seen much decent analysis of the situation. Yes, we’ve figured out the [question](http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/the-parliamentary-question-carter-ruck-and-trafigura-dont-want-you-to-see/#comment-5557). Yes, we’ve got the idea that the target is the words “[Minton Report](http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations,_14_Sep_2006)” in the question — this is the report, commissioned by Trafigura, which told them the likely effects of the waste they had dumped in [Abidjan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abidjan) (“possible consequences are…loss of consciousness and death“). But there are plenty of questions I’ve not seen even touched on:
- [On what legal basis](http://ohuiginn.net/mt/2009/10/trafigura_secrets_and_lies.html) were Carter Ruck able to gag the Guardian?
- Why no word from the rest of the British media? Are they really afraid to even mention the order against the Guardian?
- Why hasn’t anybody used this legal wheeze before? Are the circumstances rare enough that it hasn’t been previously applicable? Or is it just that Carter Ruck have come up with a new legal approach?
- What did Trafigura hope to achieve? I would have thought their reputation is now mud, whatever they do, and the main question is whether they can dodge legal proceedings? Do they really expect to bury the Minton Report, to the extent that nobody will bring it up in court?