All posts are edited.

This will come as no surprise to those familiar with Webdiary. No ideological censorship occurs, and the intention is merely to weed out the illegal and offensive, and make the text look consistently formatted and of a high editorial quality. This will no doubt be debated vigorously, and at this point I'll just state my view that this editorial policy will enhance and abet good interactivity between users rather than impede it. We do envisage numerous editors, including bloggers editing their own comments like Margo does with Webdiary.

The ethos of Your Democracy is its essential character, its DNA. It is worth stating at the outset of the project for the same reason that the elements of a pre-nuptial contract are worth discussing at the beginning of a relationship: at the start of every partnership, anything is possible - or so it seems. Just think of falling in love. Our ethos statement is like a pre-nuptial contract, which may help us think through possible eventualities which might arise before we start working together on this project.

25/06/04 Book Launch for Not Happy John at Gleebooks in Glebe Sydney. Margo talks about the www.nothappyjohn.com website and how it will be a forum to comment on , add to and correct Margo’s analysis of where Australian Democracy is heading. She hopes the site will eventually morph into an Australian version of www.moveon.org. Margo signs my copy of NHJ :)

This project is based on a faith that everyday citizens, when they are well informed, are capable of making rational decisions about how their society should be managed. In other words this project is about democracy.

This site was born from Margo Kingston's book, Not Happy John! Timely, accessible and distressing, it sold way beyond expectations, and rang a clear bell for thousands of people. It also had a blue sticker and a website.

It soon became obvious that Margo's book and www.nothappyjohn.com were a part of something much huger. Many thousands of people were Not Happy John in a great variety of ways. Although it's a little sad to think of it, it was really exciting and many of us desperately tried to hope that Howard's end had come. Sadly, we were very wrong.

It's a strange thing, democracy. Different people have different roles in keeping it strong, because the essence of a good democracy is that there are checks and balances in the system to stop unhealthy concentrations of power and encourage ethical behaviour.

Politicians make the laws. No-one can throw you in jail or take away your property without a law to back them up. This is what "the rule of law, not of men" means. The police enforce criminal laws, and a plethora of regulatory authorities enforce laws for competition, consumer rights, companies and the like. The courts decide whether or not you've broken a law and what the penalty should be. That's why they have job security until retirement, so politicians can't pressure them to decide things THEIR way. The media keep the people informed as much as possible of the truth about what is going on, so people are informed when they elect their next government.

The recent elections were a gross perversion of the democratic process. The newsmedia misinformed the public on so many of the critical issues which were at stake on 9 October, in particular the Government's plans to privatise Telstra. Accordingly, we dispute the claim of the Government to have obtained a 'mandate' to flog off what now rightly belongs to every citizen of this country.

We believe that it is essential to fight the Government's plan to privatise Telstra all the way. By promoting the sound and reasoned case against privatisation, and by arguing for a referendum to be held in lieu of any fair and democratic procedure for the Australian public to have decided upon this issue, thus far, we aim to prevent the sale, or else, to hold to account those who wish to proceed with privatisation, for the inevitable harm which will ensue from this policy.

If you are concerned, please visit the website, and feel encouraged

I have found your book a great read.

I had no idea of the Webdiary in the months preceding the start of the Iraq war. It was a period when I corresponded by email with everyone who might have been able to prevent it or exercise influence. I corresponded with the PM's war team pointing out what their decisions were doing to people in Iraq. Bill Patterson wanted to hear no more of it. I corresponded with Jim Staples and John Valder, with the US, UK , German, Russian, Chinese and French press and the UN.

I pointed out that a five person chiefs of staff group of the UN security council permanent members was supposed by law as adopted by Australia as a UN member to run any UN military intervention by force. I asked the govt to see the UN documents which by law are supposed to authorize Australia's participation for the UN. There weren't any.

It was clear after the US Congress rejected the invitation by the Iraq National Assembly in August 2002 to send a WMD inspection team to Ir

Dear friends,

I received this:

Something rather astounding happened yesterday. Mr Laurie Ferguson, member for Reid, was appointed as the shadow minister for Immigration. This made Laurie responsible for asylum seekers and refugees on behalf of the ALP.

Below is the article from The Age of this morning. I expect this to be the first article of many - I think the fury of the refugee movement with this appointment, and Laurie's uninformed and dismissive comments to Meaghan Shaw of The Age yesterday urgently call for our concerted action.

First, Mr Ferguson taints the refugee movement as a bunch of people who reject processing of asylum seekers. Secondly, he displays bluntly stupid arrogance on his first day in office, by telling The Age that he is sick of 'being lectured to by people', as if that has happened to a sickening degree on his first day as Immigration shadow minister. And thirdly, he vilifies 'unannounced boat arrivals' as people who use the court system for sel

I think the election results say more about the people who voted for Howard than about Howard himself.

I often wondered how ordinary decent people could have manned concentration camps and witnessed the horrors without a twinge of conscience. The answer is twofold; they abdicated their responsibility to defend their democracy and in return Hitler gave them permission to do his dirty work without fear of the consequences.

It may seem too radical an idea, but I believe that a similar thing happened on 9 October. The Howard voters have made the same sort of pact with him. As long as they don't have to buy a car or anything important from him, it's fine to let him run the country. After all, that's not going to impact on their lives at all, is it?

Hi,

In reference to Margo's comments about influencing people to stand as independents, I think a better way is to get a party of integrity into government. This is my suggestion:

Plan of action to make the Greens our next Government.

1. Every electorate is carved up into lots of a few streets.

2. Every lot is allocated to a group of supporters who are charged with the responsibility of their lot.

3. Every household is contacted 7 times prior to the election by the group responsible for the lot, in a systematic, planned and organised manner. (Because studies show that an average person needs to see something 7 times before they notice it properly.)

4. The key aim of each contact is to be a personal visit with literature distribution and explanations of key policy areas. The result of each contact is recorded for statistical purposes. A personal contact will not result in every case so letterbox literature will be left. Either way, people will also talk amongst t