If "Party of Citizens" can get the court to admit that the Bible is the
supreme law book in BC, then we win the case, don't you agree? As far as I
can tell, when pro-lifers and pro-abortionists or so-called "pro-choicers"
argue it out by invoking Biblical Law, the pro-lifers win easily.
Agree/disagree? What is the best argument anyone can make from the Bible
that God favors abortion?
FWP.
.

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 09:19:27 -0800
>From: Franklin Wayne Poley <culturex@...>
>Reply-To: LIFE-GAZETTE@onelist.com
>To: attorney.general@...
>Cc: ujjal.dosanjh.office@..., cdaniels@...,
info@...,
> bcpolitics@onelist.com, info@..., praise@...,
> twest@..., editor@...,
christy.clark.mla@...,
> gbrun@..., robins@..., waynee@...,
whiter@...,
> boudrd@..., millsd@..., mcdona@...,
mclela@...,
> bcreport@..., life-gazette@onelist.com
>Subject: [LIFE-GAZETTE] BC's Definition of God.
>
>From: "Franklin Wayne Poley" <culturex@...>
>
>Dear Office of the Attorney General:
> I recently sent an email to your office, asking how your
administration defines "God". Could you please acknowledge receipt of that
email letter and acknowledge that you are working on an answer to the
question?
> The question is far from frivolous. I lead a registered BC political
party called "Party of Citizens". Last night we met from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.
in Metrotown LIbrary to hear POC candidate Gordon Helmholtz Watson speak on
the topic "God's Law or the New World Order". Mr. Watson believes that THE
BIBLE IS THE SUPREME LAW BOOK in British Columbia and he will be arguing a
pro-life case before Judge Howard on that basis. As you know there is
legislation which can be argued as supporting the pro-life position and
there is legislation which can be argued as supporting the pro-abortion
position. For example, Mr. Watson repeatedly points to two sections of the
Criminal Code of Canada which clearly proscribe abortion. They are still
valid law and contrary to popular misconception, laws proscribing abortion
have not been "struck down".
> Judge Howard will therefore be presented with two sides of a ledger
consisting of provincial and federal legislation and she must decide which
has greater weight. However, there is also the matter of the Bible as a law
book and its weight in a BC court. Mr. Watson of course will be arguing that
the Bible is clearly pro-life and anti-abortion.
> My question to you has to do with the "God" of the Canadian Constitution
and whether this is the God of the Bible. If it is, Mr. Watson is quite
right in arguing from the Bible in court. Moreover, he is also requesting a
trial by jury. I have before me the Jury Act and I note a list of
Definitions at the beginning of the act as is typical of legislation. There
is no definition of "God". Why should there be? Well, I read in the
information sheet which the Sheriff's Office sends out to prospective jurors
that "The right to a trial by jury of one's peers is a cornerstone to our
democratic society and is one of its oldest institutions." Recently, when I
was called in for jury duty, I noted that 7 out of the 8 jurors took an oath
on the Bible, "so help me God" and the 8th. took an affirmation. While the
affirmation is described in Section 32, the Oath on the Bible is not
mentioned anywhere in this act. It is important for legislation to tell us
what an affirmation is and to give a list of definitions. It is vitally
important to know how this God in "so help me God" is defined. Given that
most jurors take an oath on the Bible, I would expect expect an answer along
the lines of saying that in BC and Canada, the legal system accepts the
long-standing historical understanding of the God invoked in the Bible. Is
that correct?
> According to Black's Law Dictionary, common law derives its authority
"solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity or from the
judgements and decrees of the courts, recognizing, affirming and enforcing
such usages and customs." Mr. Watson therefore believes that the British
Coronation Service is still highly relevant to this matter. Do you agree?
Last night he presented us with a manuscript titled "The Coronation of Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II", June 2, 1953. The Introduction is written by
the Archbishop of Canterbury and it says "Then the heads of the two Churches
of England and Scotland present the Holy Bible to the Queen, wherein is 'the
Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes.' So the
foundations are laid." The Archbishop is saying that the Holy Bible is the
SUPREME LAW IN BRITAIN. Would you agree that by common law it is also the
supreme law in British Columbia?
> We can also approach this matter from the perspective of the
Constitution of Canada. According to the Canada Year Book, the Constitution
is the foundation of all legislation in Canada and no legislation can stand
if it is in violation of the Constitution. The Canada Year Book includes the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution and the Preamble to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads "Whereas Canada is founded upon
principles that recognize the supremacy of God...." Dennis Mills, MP has
sent me some 60 pages of Commons Debates from 1981 dealing with whether to
include the word "God" in the Charter. Doug Roche, MP says that "...rights
exist because they are implanted in every human being by God...." (March
16/81). Whether you agree with Mr. Roche or not, it is clear that "God" is
the very foundation of the Constitution, which is the foundation of
legislation in Canada.
> Don Boudria, MP, wrote on Oct. 22, 1999, in reply to my email that "This
information may be useful in responding to your comment to 'spell out what
it means by 'God' in the Constitution/Charter of Rights'-which would appear
from the Canadian experience and that of other countries to be a matter for
churches and religious communities to consider." I agree that churches and
religious communities should be vitally interested in defining 'God'.
However, law enforcement authorities should have as much interest in the
matter. If 'God' is just a word; if law enforcement authorities are to use
this word as loosely as a drunk speaking in a beer parlour, which seems to
be the present state of affairs, then the system of justice will be
corrupted because the very foundation of law is meaningless. The rest of the
system of law then regresses to a system of order without justice,
administered by shallow word mongers. I think the place to start arresting
this corruption is with a clear definition of 'God' in law.
>I look forward to your reply.
>Sincerely-FWP
>(President, Party of Citizens).
>
>
>
>
>[Attachments have been removed from this message]
>
>>* Life Gazette chronicles the development of world cultures which have
Constitutions recognizing the supremacy of God, from Liberian to Iranian to
"Culture X" *