Church groups want casino gaming legislation withdrawn
By Neil Marks
Guyana Chronicle
January 18, 2007
GUYANA’S religious community, who claim to represent more than 95 per cent of the population, is hoping to meet President Bharrat Jagdeo before tomorrow’s sitting of the National Assembly to persuade him to withdraw the legislation allowing for casino gambling.
The legislation, which the government introduced in the House last Thursday, seeks to amend the Gambling Prevention Bill to allow for casino gambling in Guyana to hotels with more than 150 rooms, making such gaming available only to paying guests of such hotels.
Further, the legislation provides for the establishment of a Gaming Authority to grant licences and monitor the casinos, for which only three are allowed per region.
The Bahai, Christian, Hindu and Muslim organisations in Guyana, in calling for the withdrawal of the legislation, yesterday said they are “alarmed” by what seems to be the development of a trend of moving away from “constructive engagement” to unilateral decision making.
Mr. Alphonso Porter, Chairman of the Guyana Council of Churches, said that at various times, government officials, including President Jagdeo had given assurances that there would be wide consultation before any concrete steps were taken.
“However, contrary to this commitment, the Bill was tabled in Parliament without the Guyanese people being given an opportunity to be meaningfully involved in the process,” he said.
At a press conference in Georgetown, he read a statement which was agreed to by the council, the Guyana Islamic Trust, the Guyana Hindu Dharmic Sabdha, the Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG), the Bahai National Spiritual Assembly, Georgetown Ministers Fellowship, the Anjuman Hifazatul-Islam, the Guyana Evangelical Fellowship and the Guyana Islamic Relief Organisation.
The Sabha was absent from the press conference held at the office of the Guyana Islamic Trust on Lombard Street, but Porter said they gave their “firm support”.
The religious grouping issued a call for prayer and fasting for those who so desire, as part of the petition to stop the law to allow casino gambling.
They said many “important” studies have shown that commercialised gambling can lead to negative social, economic and political consequences. The religious bodies also said that the economic benefits that can be derived from casino gambling will not redound to the benefit of the wide cross section of Guyanese.
“We are firmly of the belief that the cost to the society of coping with the social consequences of casino gambling will far outweigh the value of any revenue collected,” they stated.
The organisations said the threat to the well being of the nation is real, noting that the correlation between legalised gambling and the increase in crime, alcoholism, substance abuse, suicide, prostitution and the destruction of family is well established.
Mr. Shazad Khan, of the Guyana Islamic Relief Organisation, said there are instances in which his organisation had the “burden” of taking care of families whose husbands and father squandered their money on gambling.
Mr. Shahabudin McDoom, an executive of the CIOG, said the original legislation of 1902 was enacted to prevent gambling and protect society from its harmful consequences, but now the government seeks to allow one of the most extreme forms of gambling.
He questioned that if casino gambling was so good, then why the restriction to three casinos per region.
“We are going to become a nation of gamblers,” he offered.
The organisations calling for the withdrawal of the bill said the government has shown no evidence to support its arguments regarding economic benefits and the advancement of tourism, nor has it put forward strategies to respond to the negative social consequences “which governmental officials have accepted will result.”
They are calling on the leadership of each political party to allow their parliamentarians to vote according to their conscience, and not according to the party line.
The religious bodies also called on members of the public to make urgent contact with their Members of Parliament to express their “deep dissatisfaction with the lack of proper consultation and to encourage them to vote against the Bill.”