Tragic news for Minister Belanger

[Burnaby49]

The Godless nihilistic anti-Christs running our federal government are planning deal his Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [“CERI”] a fatal blow. They're plotting to end one of the two fundamental tenets of his religious doctrine. We've written about the church here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9261

and I've started numerous discussions on Belanger and/or his followers.

The first core belief is that all laws are to be derived from the 1611 version of the King James bible. Belanger claims that he is bound to follow the King James and nothing else. This requirement is laid out in Deuteronomy 12:32, King James Version (KJV);

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

Belanger interprets that to means that God's commands in the bible are the laws that govern us and must be obeyed as they are written without making any changes to them. Since God specifically ordered us not to add to them any man-made laws not in the bible are invalid and must be ignored. As an example he would be in violation of God's will if he paid income tax since the Canadian Income Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) is not in the King James. Nor are the various provincial Motor Vehicle Acts and their licensing regulations.

However, to be fair, Belanger isn't some rigid marionette unwilling to show any flexibility at all in rejecting man-made laws. Far from it, he sees the wisdom in some and embraces them with enthusiasm! For years he collected AISH (Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped) from the province of Alberta. He was extremely upset when he was cut off and has ranted and raved about the loss ever since, demanding it back as an entitlement. Yet AISH is a creation of statute, the Assured Income For The Severely Handicapped Act, and is not in the King James bible. However Belanger is apparently willing to look past the King James to the greater good when a situation warrants it.

Fortunately, for the moment, the government is not attacking Deuteronomy 12:32. They have their sights instead on this provision of the Criminal Code;

176 (1) Every one who

(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or

(b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)

(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or
(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Belanger loves this one. It means, at least to him, that the Criminal Code specifically allows ministers exemption from all laws when they are performing their ministrations because it's a criminal offense to harass them while they are doing their Christian duties. Get picked up on a traffic offense? You're a minister on your way to perform divine service and can't be arrested. Minister Catharine tried that one when she was charged for driving without license or insurance while she was attending to her flock in her Ecclesiastical Pursuit Chariot (also known as a 1994 Mercury Sable).

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/03/20/w ... ht-tickets

According to court-filed documents, Flamond wants a judge to quash the tickets based on religious beliefs.

She argues in her Feb. 27 notice of constitutional issue that the provincial civil laws do not apply to her because she is a Christian minister who is only bound by God, the Queen of England and the Constitution Act of 1982.

Again, to be fair, she may have been relying on Deuteronomy 12:32 instead. We'll never know because she didn't show up for trial.

However Criminal Code s.176 was in full swing when Belanger prohibited the bank from foreclosing on the Volk's house when they stopped paying their mortgage. He made them instant ministers in his church then claimed that their house could not be foreclosed or even entered by the bank because it was protected under s.176. It was their church and they were performing divine services and going about their ecclesiastic duties in it. And it worked! Their house was saved from foreclosure foreclosed. But that wasn't Belanger's fault. S.176 was the perfect solution to their problems but the OPPT gang got involved and led the Volks astray.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10123#p173756

But the government, terrified of the powers that s.176 bestowed on Belanger, is taking the cowards way out and is planning to repeal it! The government gives some bullshit reason about it being discriminatory as the basis for removing it. Some nonsense about how it only protects Christian ministers but not imams or rabbis.

http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/ca ... n-raybould

The government says that this provision is outdated. Outdated! How is protecting a minister of the Church while she uses her ecclesiastic pursuit chariot in her daily toil of ministering to her flock outdated? So, to hide this gross violation of clergymen's rights, they've buried in legislation eliminating criminal provisions against fake witchcraft and duelling.

I'll keep an eye on Belanger's Youtube site to see how he reacts to this vicious ungodly attack on his church.

[notorial dissent]

He should be frothing at the mouth just any time now.

[eric]

I am being very careful in this reply to avoid discussions of religion but CCC S.176, although rarely invoked, has been a very handy statute to use when people are being stupid. Some history here, the particular crime is very old in Canada but was codified well over one hundred years to prevent problems such as this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_riots
or even worse, circus clowns of the opposing faith:
http://torontodreamsproject.blogspot.ca ... -riot.html
Lately from discussions with clergy the threat of invoking the statute has been handy to handle drunken idiots who think it's fun to disrupt weddings or the poor crazed sort who get a little out of hand during divine services.

[Burnaby49]

I'm way behind the times, Belanger posted on this issue in his Facebook page in August. And what a post! He's thrown everything he has into and semt his missive to a multitude of evildoers plotting to destroy him;

https://www.facebook.com/Romans1129/pos ... 9619850903

Way, way, way too big to reproduce here. He must see this as a fundamental attack on his church. It starts with this;

The Satanists are trying to repeal 176 of the criminal code!!!

These who voted to repeal 176 are engaged in Treason!!
This is Chapter 22 of the Confession of Faith offers binding law upon all MP's 1689 Westminster Confession of Faith!!

III. Whosoever taketh an oath, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth.g Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.h Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.

There is no lawful authority in reducing her Majesty's ability to carry out her oath bound obligations and promises by repealing 176..The action itself of even suggesting it is sedition...

Then a list of what must be a couple of hundred people he emailed his demands to. I didn't bother to count them. His posting to them starts;

Dear Geoff, I wish you, in your honorable oath bound capacity covered by section 126 of the criminal code to be aware of the purpose of the oath you took to the Queen and how relative that is to 176 of the criminal code... I am demanding your accommodation with regard to my ability as a minister of Christ to be free of obstruction by public officials trying to force civil inapplicable statute upon me that is directly in violation of the duty and true allegiance you swore you would provide to the woman who swore to defend the laws of God the Church and the Clergy.

Civil law added to or taking away from God's law is not applicable upon ministers of Christ as per the Queens duty to defend the laws of God with all of her power. No man or government has any authority to add to or take away from God's law. Deuteronomy 4:2 ,12:32 makes that hard to miss!!
Deuteronomy 4:2King James Version (KJV)

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lordyour God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32King James Version (KJV)

32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Romans 13 has been abused and is missing the discernment of Ezra 7:23-26 for all to see which ministers we are to submit to.. Not secular ones that for sure!!

Ezra 7:23-26King James Version (KJV)

23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?

24 Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.

25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not.

26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

The whole reason 176 of the criminal code was instituted was to ensure those wishing to follow Christ rather than mans corporate government , could do so , by oath allegiant officers ensuring their oaths are fulfilled observing 176 of the code as part of the Oath sworn duties her Majesty swore and promised to perform!! .

Drivers licences do not make the public safe, drivers examinations do and you need no licence to pass the test. I can pass the test. Submitting to the statutes codes and regulations of mammon's defacto government is not within my ability as a minister of Christ as it contradicts scripture.

Matthew 6:24 KJVB

The religious Oath of Allegiance of the reigning monarch of Canada in order to have a multitude of aid to carry our her Coronation promises and fulfill her Oath to defend the laws of God the Church and Clergy with all her power is inextricably tied to 176 of the criminal code.

The following is still active law affecting public servants as they cannot contradict it nor repeal it as long as a Christian Monarch sit on the throne...

Then a long outpouring of blather ending with;

Allowing a vote on such an issue cause me extreme discomfort as your members assembled attempt to by force of hands violate their own oaths and prevent ministers from officially performing the functions of their calling by invoking civil punishment upon them whereas before this treasonous effort all ministers engaged in the functions of their calling were immune from civil law victimless crimes as defended by her Majesty's Coronation Oath..

That is Nuisance Geoff as they attempt to prevent me from doing what is common to all of her Majesty's subjects, namely walk in the laws of God and follow the words of Jesus Christ!! What your doing is aiding and abetting treason against her Majesty's ability to uphold her Coronation Oath!!... It is still law!! So is the Westminister Confession of faith!! Please read chapter 22 Lawful Oaths!! Your aiding al who vote to violate their oaths lest you raise a point of order in defense of the faith that is attempted to be undermined by the godless effort of the members!!

He gave them 20 days to dispute his finding. If they didn't they agree with him. The 20 days are up but he hasn't made a follow-up posting about his victory and the abject capitulation of the government.

I'm just not doing my job. The first I knew about the issue was an article in this morning's paper. But Belanger has been on top of it for months and has already, with that message he sent to the elected representatives, smashed their plans forever. Except, except . . . . The article in the paper says they are going ahead with it and doesn't even mention any religious opposition or Belanger's message. It's as if he's totally insignificant.

[Burnaby49]

I am being very careful in this reply to avoid discussions of religion but CCC S.176, although rarely invoked, has been a very handy statute to use when people are being stupid. Some history here, the particular crime is very old in Canada but was codified well over one hundred years to prevent problems such as this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_riots
or even worse, circus clowns of the opposing faith:
http://torontodreamsproject.blogspot.ca ... -riot.html
Lately from discussions with clergy the threat of invoking the statute has been handy to handle drunken idiots who think it's fun to disrupt weddings or the poor crazed sort who get a little out of hand during divine services.

The government says that everything currently listed in S.76 is, somehow, covered elsewhere in the Criminal Code. I assume without any specific reference to religion. You don't need S.76 to arrest and convict rioters or to stop disruptive activities.

[Burnaby49]

One of the replies to Belanger's masterwork is, frankly, damn odd;

David Cardill
You know there are many pages of supreme court rulings which discuss "writing law from the bench" and in almost every one of them, and I believe there are thousands of pages of rulings from supreme courts which all say the same thing, and that is that writing law from the bench (or the seat of a cop car, or the soles of their shoes while standing) is a crime punishable by death, right? That's what the supreme court ruled, again and again, these are not my words.

So just ask them: "The supreme court has ruled that writing law from the bench is a crime punishable by death; is that your wish?"

No idea what he's babbling about. We don't even have a death penalty in Canada and I'd assume that the Supreme Court of Canada is aware of that. As always a lot of bullshit but no citation of a single one of those thousands of pages.

[Jeffrey]

Isn't the obvious solution to expand s.76 to apply to all religious officials (is that the right word?)? Why jump to repeal?

[notorial dissent]

Isn't the obvious solution to expand s.76 to apply to all religious officials (is that the right word?)? Why jump to repeal?

Realistically true, although I can see an issue with it being applicable since it is overly broad in ways leading to the likes of the parasite's misconstruances unless there is a more specific set of definitions used.

[Burnaby49]

Isn't the obvious solution to expand s.76 to apply to all religious officials (is that the right word?)? Why jump to repeal?

I assume that the government no longer wants anything to do with a law that gives specific protection and rights to religious leaders and would rather just get rid of it over opening up a can of worms by expanding it. As eric pointed out the law was implimented over a hundred years ago and times have changed. And it's way too vague for easy administration. As an example this might have meant something a hundred years ago;

(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Back then it may have been understood to have meant things like temperance or suffragette meetings, but what does it mean now? Does 'social' cover drunken frat parties? Who defines what is considered a moral or benevolent purpose? As the government has said the offenses covered in s. 176 are covered elsewhere in the Criminal Code making it redundant. I keep a pretty close watch on Canadian news and this is the first I've heard of the proposed repeal. Apart from fringe characters like Belanger I'm not aware of any opposition to just getting rid of it.

[The Observer]

I am for any repeal of a statute that sends Belanger into apoplexy. But the law had its merits at one time - you can't argue with a good whoop-ass on clowns under the cloak of religion.

[Philistine]

Isn't the obvious solution to expand s.76 to apply to all religious officials (is that the right word?)? Why jump to repeal?

I disagree. The most elegant solution is to repeal an ancient law which is covered elsewhere in the criminal code.
The religious don't need exemptions and a special place. We are all equal under the laws of this country, or so I thought.
Belanger and his ilk can suck eggs.

[grixit]

People who scream about the 1611 KJV usually mean the 1630 edition. The 1611 had the Apocrypha in it.

[Burnaby49]

People who scream about the 1611 KJV usually mean the 1630 edition. The 1611 had the Apocrypha in it.

According to Wikipedia all editions of the King James until 1666 had the apocrypha in them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... es_Version

Although I go on and on about Belanger using the 1611 edition I can't actually dredge up any evidence that he's actually said that. Maybe I made it up, I'm not going back through his videos to check. He does a lot of bible quoting in support of his positions but he's never used the apocrypha that I've noticed, just the plain vanilla canonical chapters. He has a particular affection for Deuteronomy and Romans. However there's no doubt about his love affair with the King James, he mentions it constantly.

[Juisarian]

One of the replies to Belanger's masterwork is, frankly, damn odd;

David Cardill
You know there are many pages of supreme court rulings which discuss "writing law from the bench" and in almost every one of them, and I believe there are thousands of pages of rulings from supreme courts which all say the same thing, and that is that writing law from the bench (or the seat of a cop car, or the soles of their shoes while standing) is a crime punishable by death, right? That's what the supreme court ruled, again and again, these are not my words.

So just ask them: "The supreme court has ruled that writing law from the bench is a crime punishable by death; is that your wish?"

.

And then the Supreme Court presumably all sentenced themselves to death for writing that law from the bench.

[HardyW]

One of the replies to Belanger's masterwork is, frankly, damn odd;

David Cardill
You know there are many pages of supreme court rulings which discuss "writing law from the bench" and in almost every one of them, and I believe there are thousands of pages of rulings from supreme courts which all say the same thing, and that is that writing law from the bench (or the seat of a cop car, or the soles of their shoes while standing) is a crime punishable by death, right?

No idea what he's babbling about. We don't even have a death penalty in Canada and I'd assume that the Supreme Court of Canada is aware of that. As always a lot of bullshit but no citation of a single one of those thousands of pages.

Yes that is very odd and I suspect a word or two are missing and it should read

David Cardill
You know there are many pages on the Internet of supreme court rulings which discuss "writing law from the bench" and in almost every one of them, and I believe the Internet implicitly, there are thousands of rulings from supreme courts which all say the same thing, and that is that writing law from the bench (or the seat of a cop car, or the soles of their shoes while standing) is a crime punishable by death, right?