Is the Quran an "..official Saudi Arabian religious publications ..", or perhaps that is taking too much liberty at the Manual of national AND racial AND religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination AND hostility AND violence.

Posted by: Sharku at October 12, 2005 10:49 PM

Unbelievable that the serpentine Saudi Princes of Darkness are still given cachet and currency in the West. Our own petrodollars in the hands of these canaille have radicalized most of the Western mosques, and have bribed and threatened our politicians and enervated our state departments.

What a shame.

Posted by: dgene at October 12, 2005 11:18 PM

It doesn't go far enough. The US should ban the Saudi government from building or funding any more mosques in America, or at least until the Saudis allow churches and synogogues to be built in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at October 12, 2005 11:43 PM

I've got a question....or two.

Are the truths of Islam making inroads into our military men and women? Is anyone purposefully focusing on educating our soldiers as to the threat that Muslims in their midst pose to them?

Would it be legal for a US soldier to refuse to to carry out his orders, or finish his service out of the fear of one of his fellow soldiers endangering him out of a greater allegiance to Islam rather than to the United States?

I would think it is perfectly legal to do so, and wonder whether soldiers who know better should be implored to do so, and promised the support he or she will need to do such a courageous thing.

It could make a huge difference in spreading the word, and getting the military on the right side of this issue.

Posted by: vashine at October 12, 2005 11:50 PM

as for Bohemond_1069's comment, you can look for that in a future legislation proposal by the UAC, mark my word

Posted by: JesseP_UAC at October 12, 2005 11:53 PM

No, no, no. This is bad, really bad. Bush should never have signed this. This could very easily be turned on it's head, seriously damage our First Amendment rights, and silence serious criticism of Islam. Damn I hate treaties, so many of them are against our best interests.
Many of the posts on this website could easily be construed as meeting "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
"Hatred", "discrimination", "hostility" are words too easily manipulated.
Better to mount a relentless campaign on the MSM to expose what the Saudi Islamofascists are doing than to try to bring this wording into play. And when the MSM get it wrong, hit them again and again.
However, the British still have their sedition laws, I believe, which could likely be applied against British Muslims.
We threw out our Sedition laws in the first decade of the 1800's as unconstitutional.

Posted by: Ariel at October 13, 2005 2:10 AM

Action taken. We must make our voices heard to those who represent us. Hopefully it will open their eyes to the threat we face.

Posted by: watcher at October 13, 2005 2:41 AM

Ariel;

Is this in effect a sedition law?

"In accordance with its commitments as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was approved by the United States Senate in April 1992 and then signed and ratified by President George H. W. Bush on June 8, 1992"

"We threw out our Sedition laws in the first decade of the 1800's as unconstitutional."

If so, then it (ICCPR) is itself unconstitutional?

I think you raise a very valid point. The actionable part is the "incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence ", so perhaps stating facts will hold the ability to raise concerns here without penalty.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 13, 2005 4:06 AM

The UAC is wrong. The United States has ratified the ICCPR with reservations with regard to Article 20. The United States is therefore under no obligation to ban any propaganda. To the contrary, such a law would be flatly unconstitutional under modern free speech doctrine.
The reservation was necessary in order to resolve the conflict between the obligations under the convention and the U. S. Constitution.
That because the U. S. Supreme Court held in its Brandenburg decision that advocacy of hatred and even violent overthrow of the government is protected by the First Amendment, unless the speaker both intends to incite imminent lawless action and that the violence called for is imminent.

Posted by: Peter at October 13, 2005 7:09 AM

I tend to be leary of international agreements and their impact on the rights of the average American. I believe a better approach is the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act, see info below.

New York – As part of the ZOA-initiated Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 25 will be conducting hearings into materials bearing the seal of the government of Saudi Arabia inciting Muslims to acts of violence and promoting hatred of Jews and Christians, as well as Saudi materials describing democracy and America as un-Islamic, instructing recent Muslim immigrants to consider Americans as enemies, urging new arrivals to use their time here as preparation for jihad, and promoting Wahhabi Islam, the extreme Islamist creed that is the official religion of Saudi Arabia and several of the September 11, 2001 hijackers, as the only authentic Islam (New York Sun, October 5). Other reports have stated that over 50% of the “Iraqi insurgents” murdering Americans are from Saudi Arabia.

The State Department has been reportedly pressing Saudi officials for an explanation following a January report from the Center for Religious Freedom, a branch of the human rights organization, Freedom House, which disclosed that dozens of mosques in major cities across the country, including New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, were distributing these materials.

In response to the Freedom House report and as part of the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee is charged with ascertaining the best way, in the words of the legislation, "to halt Saudi support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, and to secure fully Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents." This charge was introduced by the Judiciary Committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and co-sponsored on the Democratic side by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "We applaud Sen. Specter for deciding to hold these important hearings investigating the promotion of international terrorism by Saudi Arabia. We, at ZOA, are proud to have been able to assist in this critical effort. The Saudi Arabian government has been caught red-handed producing official materials that have been disseminated in mosques promoting terrorism and the hatred of America, Jews and Christians. This is not simply a case of Saudi individuals or private organizations that are terrorists, hate-mongers or donors to extreme Islamist causes, but the official actions of the Saudi government.

"In late September, President Bush certified that 'Saudi Arabia is cooperating in efforts to combat international terrorism,' enabling the U.S. to give financial assistance to Saudi Arabia. We strongly urge President Bush to rethink his certification of Saudi Arabia in light of the recent revelations in this report. We await further facts that will emerge from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. If the hearings confirm the accuracy of the Center's report, we call on the Bush Administration to immediately halt all financial and military assistance to the kingdom and to support the final passage of the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005."

Posted by: treehugger at October 13, 2005 9:43 AM

UAC's initiative gives way too much of an opening for the ACLU & Co. to start chipping away at Free Speech and replacing it with Constructive, Thoughtful, Responsible Speech.

We've got the Slow Jihad to the front, no doubt; but we can never forget the moonbats on the Left flank.

I'll take a pass.

Posted by: Mad_Jack at October 13, 2005 10:51 AM

Peter, thank you. Brandenburg v. Ohio.
The problem with the Saudia Arabia Accountability Act is that it will be twisted to suit foreign policy, as noted above by treehugger. Legally, it is the right way to go. It doesn't violate our rights because it is directed at the actions of a foreign state. The American people need to know that this literature flows to too many Mosques in this country and what its purpose is. That takes the MSM, a Presidential press conference, or a bombing at a stadium. I prefer the first two.
The Wahhabi sect, the House of Saud, drives much of this vile hatred for the west. Saudis are the driving force in a number of these organizations, intellectually, monetarily, or manpower. Ironic, our greatest ally in the Arab Middle East is also our greatest enemy.
The British have always had Sedition Laws, but tend to use them carefully and only as necessary.
They have enacted Hate Laws, however, and there is an Episcopal father who gave a sermon based on Leviticus (homosexuality) and has been charged with a hate crime. The British, though, have a great sense for "the rule of law". I trust them to correct mistakes.

Posted by: Ariel at October 13, 2005 12:48 PM