Author: old_wp_importer

Qiu Xiaolong is a bestselling Chinese author of crime thrillers. But his depictions of Shanghai as a city of crime and corruption haven’t gone down well with the authorities.

Philip Pullman writing on Athensius Kircher (in the form of a book review) is a treat, lightly linking him to the post-pomo cultural melange, and the return of magic:

Kircher lived on the cusp between the magical world of the Middle Ages and the rational and scientific world of modernity – as perhaps we do again today, except that we’re going in the other direction. His half-sceptical, half-credulous cast of mind is very much to our current taste.

I’m intrigued by [Daniel Davies’ suggestion](http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2009/10/hell-freezes-over-yes-folks-its-last.html) that what the recession shows that economists should steer clear of talking about anything other than the economy itself. In the era of Freakonomics they “abandoned the study of production, consumption and exchange”, in favour of “awful amateur-hour sociology”.

In spirit, although perhaps not explicitly, this runs counter to one of the other big currents of economic punditry I’ve lately been bombarded with. Parts of the French media, [Esprit](http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2009-06-08-esprit-en.html) and [RiLi](http://revuedeslivres.net/articles.php?idArt=351) for instance, have been pushing behavioural economics as the solution to all that ails economics. In this view, economics failed by concentrating too much on rational behaviour — they couldn’t see the bubble-inflating irrationality driving companies and traders, so they failed to predict the inevitable collapse.

It’s theoretically possible to have both these views — to argue that economics should take lessons from sociology and elsewhere in order to understand the markets, but avoid themselves dabbling in social problems. In practice, though, won’t the blending of sociology and economics always cut both ways?

The Wall Street Journal is, judging by its website, one of the few media organizations to pay serious attention to Central and Eastern Europe. It’s mostly paywalled, alas, but there is at least a dedicated [blog](http://blogs.wsj.com/new-europe/) for us shallow-pocketed types.

Wikileaks seems to be getting a steady stream of German political documents, at the moment particularly concerning coalition talks. Unfortunately I’m no longer following German politics closely enough to figure out the backstory and meaning of the leaks.

I’m yet to find a decent analysis of the Greek election a week ago, which gave the centre-left Pasok Party their [largest victory ever](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/europe/05greece.html).

Since my knowledge of Greek politics is limited to a vague awareness of [last winter’s riots](http://jimjay.blogspot.com/2008/12/guest-post-greek-fire.html), I’m stuck with not-particularly-informative media pundits. For starters, it seems nobody even has any idea why the election happened. The ruling ND party could have continued for another couple of years, but instead called elections that everybody expected them to lose. Why?

Was it because Prime Minister [Konstantinos Karamanlis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kostas_Karamanlis) wanted out, on a personal level? (Many of his ministers didn’t want the election). Is there some impending disaster that he’d rather see blamed on the opposition? Or just that the recession will be painful, and it’s easier to dump that on Pasok?

The other question is why the centre-left won, when across the rest of europe they’re simultaneously disintegrating. As far as I can see the answers have little connection to Europe, or even to the dubious virtues of Pasok. The only international element is the economic collapse. Beyond that, it’s all Greek: the corruption, the unpopularity of Karamanlis, anger over December’s protests. Or something completely different, for all I know.

[normally when I write about something I know nothing about, I find myself learning a little in the process. Not this time]

Still on Trafigura, blindly trying to figure out how Carter Ruck managed to ban the Guardian from reporting a question in Parliament.

The situation should be pretty clear: libel doesn’t apply to parliament, or to media reporting of parliament.

Under the [1996 Defamation Act](http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/plain/ukpga_19960031_en), ‘A fair and accurate report of proceedings in public of a legislature anywhere in the world.’ is exempt from libel claims, provided:

1. The publication is not malicious
2. The newspaper provides a right to reply
3. The information is in the public interest

There

are

some theoretical loopholes there, but it’s hard to see how Trafigura could squeeze through them.

More likely, there was some other grounds to prevent publication. This might involve claiming that the issue is

sub judice

(already being considered in court), perhaps because Trafigura is embroiled in a related court case in the Netherlands.

Trafigura have long been cracking down on anybody mentioning the Minton Report. As they wrote to Norwegian journalists:

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. For your attention we have attached hereto a

copy of the Court Order.

But that wouldn’t explain why the Guardian can’t even explain how they are being prevented from publishing:

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.

On that, I have no idea. Anybody with ideas, or links to ideas, I’d love to hear about them.

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?

The Trafigura affair really is an embarrassement to British law. Company dumps toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, causes perhaps 10 deaths and a lot more illness and injury. Uses libel law to batter down journalists trying to report it. Newsnight and the Guardian get at least some of the news out. Then, today, things get really bad:

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

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.

The question involved is pretty sure to be this one:

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.

WTF:

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

…

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Via Warren Ellis, disturbingly enough. This whole affair could have come straight out of Transmet.

Anybody know what’s going on? All the speculation I’ve seen so far says it’s about Trafigura. But how could it even work from a legal standpoint?