The buzz is about casino gambling
Editorial
Kaieteur News
December 11, 2006
Last week the debate was on corporal punishment. This week it is about casino gambling. Not so long ago it was about the introduction of sex education in schools. And before that, it was about teenage pregnancy.
The view is that any topic that grabs the attention of the public would be the source of debate and discussion. When the government tabled legislation to remove discrimination because of sexual orientation, the churches came out in full force. The supporters of the Bill were as vocal as the opponents.
That Bill, termed the Sexual Orientation Bill, was interpreted to mean many things, not least among them, the right for men to marry men, as opposed to same sex marriages which would include women marrying women.
People lined up outside Parliament and when that failed to sway the vote because people voted according to their conscience, the opponents of the Bill petitioned President Bharrat Jagdeo who refused to assent to the Bill and ended up sending it back to the National Assembly where it languishes to this day.
Another Bill that attracted heated debate dealt with legalising abortion. The churches once more came out in full force. People spoke most vehemently about the rights of the unborn, even as on the international scene there continued to be doubt about when the foetus could be considered a child.
In the end, following another conscious vote, the National Assembly passed the Bill but the modification precluded the public institutions from performing abortions. The argument was that opponents of legalised abortions were tax payers and the State did not wish to create a situation where the taxpayer could conclude that his money was going to fund abortions.
The irony of that is that the public institutions are increasingly being called on to complete abortions because many women turn up with botched abortions and run the risk of death from some infection or the other.
So this time around the debate is about casino gambling. President Jagdeo had said that he proposed to have legislation approved for casino gambling in Guyana . He also stated that this form of gambling would not be widespread, that only hotels with 250 rooms would be allowed to have a casino.
He also announced that resident Guyanese would not be permitted to gamble in the casino. Needless to say, this last comment sparked another debate. People found it to be discriminatory and in contravention of the constitution.
We have not yet come to that challenge because the legislation for casino gambling is not yet a reality but the religious leaders, as is their wont, are out in force. They have already rejected casino gambling, citing all manner of reasons.
When radio bingo was first introduced in Guyana , there was nary a peep but that was a form of gambling. When lottery came it was the same thing. Today, lottery is entrenched and more than few churchgoers participate in this form of gambling.
The harsh reality is that no group of people should decide for the majority. Casino gambling is not going to be compulsory. If an individual is opposed to casino gambling then he has the right to refuse to gamble. Horse racing and other forms of gambling abound in Guyana and there is nothing to compel an individual to be a part of the venture.
In the same way, if an individual feels that gambling is wrong then he has the right to refrain. But he does not have the right to dictate to the person who wants to gamble, provided gambling is legalised.
There are advantages and disadvantages to every aspect of life. The religious may argue that an individual could use his earnings to gamble to the detriment of his family.
That was one argument used when the Guyana Lottery was introduced. After one decade there is still to be one case where an individual used his earnings to play lotto and left his family hungry.
The advantage is that money that would not normally remain in the system would come in.
There would be employment for a group of people and of course there would be an increased revenue base.
But then again, each person must be allowed to express his or her view and the churches have that right. They have been allowed to state their opposition to casino gambling. Supporters must also be allowed to express their view.