Old journalists say that if you speak the word 'Trafigura' three times, a lawyer appears in a cloud of sulphurous smoke; telling you not to write about it. This prophecy has come true for the Guardian, on whom everyone's favourite media lawyers Carter-Ruck have placed an unprecedented gagging order which, outrageously, bans them from reporting parliament - a spectacularly undemocratic tactic which as the paper point out calls "into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights." The threats don't work of course; they never have. Not even in ancient times.

The glittering Temple of Artemis in what is now western Turkey was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. I say was because on around July 20th, 356BCE a fame-obsessed man name Herostratus decided to burn it down, claiming credit in an attempt to have his name immortalised in history. The Ephesean authorities not only executed him, but, hoping to deny him his desired fame, banned all mention of his name. He became famous in spite of - or perhaps even because of - their actions, in the earliest recorded example of The Streisand Effect; the phenomenon by which any attempt to censor something results it it being even more talked about.

This is especially true in the Internet Age. As EFF founder John Gilmore so eloquently put it back in 1993: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

And so it was inevitable that, even as The Guardian go to court today to have the order overturned, Carter-Ruck's strategy would fail spectacularly. So spectacularly in fact that Trafigura became, briefly, the number one trending topic on Twitter; one of the most talked about stories on the planet. Rarely will you see a legal firm so deftly beating its own goal-keeper. Terribly misconceived, as lawyer and legal writer Jack of Kent would put it.

But what is this Trafigura business all about? And what have the Guardian been banned from reporting?

Trafigura are a Swiss-based multinational oil trader, and with a turnover in the region of seventy billion dollars probably one of the biggest companies you've never heard of, in spite of being accused in the Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal. They are physical traders, carrying oil around the world, processing and refining it for resale at a profit.

A few years ago, they spotted an opportunity for refining sulphur-contaminated gasoline from the Mexican state refinery, and processing it at sea using a process called "caustic washing", a cheap and decidedly uncheerful process that generates waste so dangerous it is effectively banned in most parts of the world. The refined oil was sold on for several million dollars at a time, but their ships were left with a cargo of toxic waste.

E-mails obtained by the Guardian showed that in 2006, having failed to offload this waste in Europe, they took it to Ivory Coast, and disposed of it with an enthusiastic but unqualified local "man-with-a-van." It ended up in dumps around Abidjan, Ivory Coast's maritime capital.

Thousands fell ill, with many burns inflicted by caustic soda, and many deaths caused by breathing in hydrogen sulphide fumes produced by the waste. The company were forced to settle a 9-figure lawsuit on top of compensation previously given to the country's government.

Which brings us to the present. In parliament today, the a question is due to be asked by Newcastle MP Paul Farrelly, and it is this which the Guardian have been banned from reporting. As the Guardian have stated:

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 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.

The question referenced, which is published online at the Parliament website, is believed to be the following:

From Parliament.uk, “Questions for Oral or Written Answer beginning on Tuesday 13 October 2009?

(292409)
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 Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

The question makes reference to the Minton Report, The report is available online, and suggests that Trafigura knew early on that the waste they dumped in Ivory Coast was toxic, a claim which the company have denied.

Whatever Carter-Ruck's reasons for this injunction, their approach has backfired spectacularly. A reference to a question that would have been buried in the middle of the Guardian has now been spread around the world, the question has been posted on numerous websites, and the Minton report is now published online and linked to by thousands of people. And good, because the appalling behaviour of companies like Trafigura needs to be exposed, and people need to stand up to attempts to stifle democracy.

Update, 12:15pm: John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, has called for an urgent Commons debate on the matter. This has been echoed by the Lib Dem chief whip, Paul Burstow, and Nick Clegg has shown an interest in the case on Twitter. No word from anyone from Labour yet. Further reporting on this in The Guardian.

Update: 13:00pm The Guardian are claiming victory in their battle to have the order overturned, with Carter-Ruck conceding defeat. Excellent news - common sense prevails.

The Guardian was due to appear at the High Court at 2pm to challenge Carter-Ruck's behaviour, but the firm has dropped its claim that to report parliament would be in contempt of court.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Follow me on Twitter: @mjrobbins