The State Was Made For Man - Not Man For The State

The Status of Christianity in the Law:

The roots of Australia's free society lie in the historic victory over English Monarchs, Parliaments and man-made laws, that was won by Christ and His church, through the influence of the Christian belief that the State and its institutions exist to serve the individual, not the other way around. Australia, by the grace of God, has the advantage of having inherited the best of English Christian tradition for protecting the citizen. Laws such as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights stemmed from the efforts of individuals who held common views about how to live in community but still retain God-given freedoms. Western civilization would not have developed as it did without the impact of sound Christianity.

The status of Christianity in the Law was upheld in 1879 by Lord Chief Justice Kenyon (in the Williams case) when he stated that the Christian religion is part of the law of England. That "Christianity is part and parcel of the law of this land" has also been confirmed in Australian Courts by Mr.Justice Kelly. Every British monarch since 1689 has been required to be crowned by the Church in a Christian ceremony, swearing the Oath on the Bible, and promising to uphold the Law of God and promote the true Gospel of Christ..

Australia's Oaths of Allegiance, Oaths of Office, etc., are based on the Oath entrenched in the Bill of Rights 1689, to confirm that what the Monarch swore to uphold, shall be upheld also by all Australians., especially the lawmakers in Parliament, and Judges in the Courts. Any breach of allegiance is either Treason, Treachery or Sedition, as per the Crimes Act.

The opening prayer to Almighty God, through the mediation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which is said every day in our Queensland Parliament, declares that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of this land. It shows rulers that they are to honour God 's Laws in the formulating of their laws, so that enacted laws will be "for His glory, for the good of Christ's Church [all true Christians] etc." Rulers are not to deprive us of our right to the blessings of Christian government in this nation.

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) Chief Justice of England said, "If the judgments of Parliament are not consistent with the Ten Commandments then they are invalid." [We should challenge our many invalid laws.] He said Common Law is the best birthright that the subject has for the safeguard and defence, not only of his goods, lands and revenues, but of his wife and children, his body, fame and life also.

The Law of the Land Provides Restraint.

Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury was one of the heroes of the Magna Carta which ensured righteous justice and true freedom for the individual, for all times forever, after being signed by the tyrant, King John. It established the supremacy of the Law over the will of the Monarch, and forms part of the English Constitution.

The Bill of Rights was drawn up in 1688 by a committee chaired by Barrister Baron John Somers (1651-1716), later Attorney General, then Lord High Chancellor, and finally Lord President of the Privy Council in 1708. It was based on the essential Christian belief - that the power of all rulers and governments must be limited by a Higher Law, basically the Ten Commandments. Like freedom of speech, inherited protections cannot be diminished without being lost.

These limitations on power were imposed first on William and Mary in 1689 and then on every Monarch since then, to prevent tyranny by oppressive Monarchs, governments or bureaucrats. Today God's Law form the conditions on which the Queen of Australia reigns over us. Both Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights state that the rights and liberties thus procured for the people are never to be diminished or denied, and that every monarch must guarantee to prevent any attempt by anyone to tamper with these laws.

The Law of the Land is Supreme over Queen and Parliament:

The Constitution in Sec.61 defines the Queen as supreme over Parliament. At her Coronation she acknowledged God as Supreme Head over all. Before God and the people, our Queen swore to uphold the law of the land. Our Imperial Acts Application Act (by use of "shall continue in force",.not "will") declares the inevitable use of the listed laws. Neither Queen nor Parliament can avoid the legal application of these immovable inherited laws that forever remain our lawful effectual bulwark against dictators, be they monarchs or politicians.

"Treachery" best describes the Weapons Bill. since it betrays all the Oaths of Allegiance to the Sovereign. This calls for Court action. No Parliament in Australia can lawfully usurp God's supremacy in law. He is the only one Who is truly Sovereign. He is King of kings. Our Monarch acknowledged this fact when She vowed allegiance to Him during her Coronation Service, thus becoming "Defender of the Christian Faith".

The Weapons Amendment Bill: Invalid Under the Law of the Land:

It was our opinion that this Weapons Bill was totally flawed in ways too many to ennumerate and satisfactorily deal with in one submission against it, so on 8/9/96 I prepared as well this separate one-page Submission solely on the Law of the Land which is the Christian expression of God's Law, and therefore is supreme over both Queen and Parliament, and cannot be denied or diminished by either Parliament or the Monarch. I refer specifically to our inherited laws, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1689.

Section 25 (Possession of weapons): Allow me to point out here that it is not the possession of a weapon, but the Biblical sin of "shedding innocent blood", that is to be avoided. Yet this Bill makes it a reason to go to goal just for possessing any part of a weapon, or a single round of ammunition or component thereof, or having any of the many described outlawed means of self-defence. Among the things we can be fined or gaoled for having are bullet-proof vests or cutting or piercing instruments (as are found in every kitchen or workshop!) Combine all that with the fact that the gun-owner is guilty of nothing , not even intent to harm, and you have a Bill that created the ultimate in "victimless" crimes, then punished the innocent gun-owner.

People I have spoken to have found it hard to believe that that Bill provided for goal sentences for simply possessing such things as a cutting or piercing instrument. The commonly held public perception is that it is justice if a person is gaoled for 'shedding innocent blood', but certainly not for merely possessing something that is capable of causing bodily harm, quite unintentional unless perhaps in lawful self-defence.

Inherited Law says: "A freeman shall not be punished for a small fault." (Magna Carta). Having the means of self-defence is a person's right, not to be diminished in any way.(Bill of Rights). Parliament does not have the power to make mere possession a crime. Therefore I could not uphold this Bill . This was such a major flaw that it condemned the Bill totally with no real need of further debate.

Conservative voters felt betrayed by those they had trusted at the last election.

The above extracts were from Submissions to Parliamentarians in 1996 By: Mrs. Rona Joyner, representing Festival of Light/Community Standards Organization [FOL/CSO(Q)], and Life & Liberty Literature Centre [LLL] PO Box 350, Kallangur, 4503.

Visits since 16/7/99: