---

Canadian Delegates to United Nations Betray Canada on Cloning Ban

Abstain on vote that delayed critical international decision until 2005

UNITED NATIONS, November 6, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a huge disappointment to pro-life forces at the United Nations, the United Nations General Assembly legal committee (6th committee) voted today to delay for two years consideration of a UN convention to ban human cloning. Pro-life leaders in Canada are particularly distressed at the fact that Canada decided to abstain on the all-important delay measure which passed by only one vote; 80-79 with 15 abstentions.

Only yesterday, the Canadian government had promised to back the full ban on human cloning at the United Nations after having, for nearly two years, backed the competing proposal which sought to ban only human reproductive cloning. Following Health Minister Anne McLellan's assurance in the House of Commons that Canada would support the full ban on human cloning, 17 Members of Parliament sent letters to the Canadian delegation advising them to support the proposed total ban on human cloning.

Pro-life lobbyists at the United Nations were very hopeful that the total ban on cloning would pass. The Costa Rican proposed total ban on cloning was almost assured passage with over 60 backers, including the strong support of the United States. The alternate Franco-German proposal of banning reproductive cloning only was sponsored by only 13 nations.

Douglas Sylva of the UN pro-life lobby group Catholic and Family Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) told LifeSite, "Today proponents of creating cloned human embryos for research realized that they were heading toward defeat and therefore engaged in a desperate act of deferring the decision for 2 years." Sylva pointed out countries that supported the motion to delay included Germany and France. "These are the same countries that have been telling the world how urgent the issue of cloning is over the last 2 years," said Sylva. "It's not urgent, I guess, if they are going to lose."

Samantha Singson, UN lobbyist for Campaign Life Coalition Canada, sent the letters from the 17 MPs to the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, including with them a cover letter noting that only the total ban on cloning reflected the wishes of Canadians. Significantly, she warned the delegation that "it would be irresponsible and unethical to support the non-action proposal . . . this issue is incredibly serious and merits immediate attention from the international community."

Rob Merrifield, the Canadian Alliance Health Critic who in the House of Commons elicited the promises from the Health Minister that Canada would support the total ban on cloning, said today that Health Minister Anne McLellan "misled Canadians" when she said Canada would be supporting a comprehensive ban on human cloning. "I guess her promise is only good for one day," said Merrifield. "She should apologize to the House and to Canadians for her comments."

"Canada's abstention cost the vote, and the likely passage of the Costa Rican resolution to ban all human cloning," said Merrifield. "The Minister and her government have a lot to answer for."

Looking forward to 2005, Sylva concluded, "In the next 2 years we expect support for a total ban to increase even further as countries come to realize the enormous ethical implications of creating human beings with the intent to destroy them."

See related LifeSite coverage:
Canada Flip-Flops at UN: Now Supports Ban on All Forms of Human Cloning
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/nov/03110501.html

 Back to Top

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.