So on the 05th Feb 2021, several things happened which we wanted to take note of.
The Canadian Government declared the “Proud Boys” as a terrorist group , putting it in the same manner as ISIS and Al Qaeda.
The Canadian Government is free to label whichever entity it chooses to as a ‘terrorist’, ultimately it will be the Canadian voters to decide whether the Canadian Government’s view represents their own.
The key issue is “Whose Next?”
A secondary issue will be on the applicability of an individual nation’s designation of an entity as belonging on a terrorist group for the banking regulator throughout the world. In the case of Malaysia, it will be Bank Negara under the applicable AML/CFT standards “Anti Money Laundering”. For the case of Malaysia, we follow the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) , which is based on the Financial Action Task Force as the international standard.
BNM’s website is actually quite clear in what are the principles used in designating an entity as a terrorist entity for the purposes of enforcement of Terrorism Financing framework, namely:
- The Vienna Convention (United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988)
- The Palermo Convention (The International Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (2000)
- International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
- Security Council Resolution 1373
- Security Council Resolution 1267 and its successors
From an economic perspective, Canada’s decision to label Proud Boys as a terrorist organization may be very well received by the White House, but may not be as well received by vast populations in the United States. Based on our research, the understanding is that there is a view in the US that Trump was actually protecting ordinary Americans to the corporatist globalist agenda.
Nonetheless, Canada has total trade of $720 billion with the United States. If Canada’s decision infuriates the Americans, it could lead to consumer led boycotts of Canadian goods, which could bring down a minority government in Canada.
Perhaps of greater consequence than the above was this horrid result.
Maybe it was a sign of the bleak atmosphere of this moment.
Ok now point 2
The second issue has to do with a post in Politico which takes aim at what the author describes as “Violent Christian Extremism.”
The author describes it as such:
So as a Christian, I think I can provide my perspective on the above. Please note, as some of my readers may be of differing faiths, the perspective provided is not to evangelize you but to keep a record of certain events and my thinking at that time for later reflection.
So I will leave some wide spaces to pause and think if you want to proceed
To answer this, we have to look at things from a 2 track argument, like an overhead bridge on top and a road below.
Firstly, the concept of a Covenant is not something that is treated lightly in the Christian faith. There are all together 2 Covenants, with only 1 in force at any one time. One Covenant which operated before the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and one Covenant which operated after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
To readers who may not understand a Covenant is a contract between two parties, and in Christianity, one of the parties is God. In the initial covenant, it was between God and the nation of Israel. In the second covenant, it is between God and the individual Christian believer.
In the Christian faith there is no Covenant between America and God. If one professes that the Christianity posits a Covenant between America, a Geo-political entity not mentioned explicitly in the Bible, and God, it runs contrary to the central tenets of the belief.
So that lays down one part of an argument.
The second part perhaps has to do with the political views held by Christians owing to their faith. This perhaps applies to me as well so in a way, this post sort of acts as a guard railing to remind myself of certain things.
So if tomorrow, as has happened in many countries in the West, suppose there is a vote on same sex marriage? Will I campaign on Facebook to oppose it? Nope. Will I campaign on Rembau Times to oppose it. (Hopefully not, that is why I put this article up to remind me).
I hope to devote a total of zero effort campaigning and even a lesser effort to vote on it.
For me, the idea is as a Malaysian, the “Rukun Negara” sets down the ideas on tenets on which the constitution is based. In Indonesia, I believe it will be the Pancasila. There are in built provisions in the Rukun Negara which actually makes such an issue very unlikely to occur in Malaysia.
But even if in the most unlikely scenario, even if the issue were to be brought to a vote in Malaysia, I hope to a) not campaign and b) not vote.
My reasoning goes like this:
- Number one, I am not going to marry a man, so does not apply to me.
- Number two, I am not in power, so I have no responsibility to make that decision because I do not have that authority. The last I checked, you get a paycheck to make those tough decisions.
- Number three, if the Government of Malaysia at that time, or the Parliament, abrogates its authority over the Marriage and Divorce Act 1976 and decides to put it to the vote by the public, they are not worth my time to bother it over. If they want me to make a decision for them, please send the MP allowance cheque and place my seat in the Dewan Rakyat next to Yang Berhormat Baling.