The Tribune

By STEPHEN HUNT

Tribune Correspondent

EVERY day, a considerable number of Bahamians commit a crime.

These are Bahamians who would never consider a robbery. Bahamians who would never hold a gun. Who tut disapprovingly at the levels of crime and demand to know what can be done. Who work in respectable jobs and go to church on Sunday.

Their crime is gambling. But whether it should remain a crime will very soon become a major debate in the Bahamas.

Many readers are familiar with the numbers houses. You pick your numbers, you place your bet on lottery draws across the US, with the money itself being staked in betting shops across the water in the States.

Strictly speaking, it's illegal. And yet, day by day, the numbers houses are full. And yet we don't see police raids, and we don't see respectable Bahamian after respectable Bahamian lined up in the courts to answer for their actions.

That's exactly what Bishop John Humes and the Christian Council urged the former prime minister, Hubert Ingraham, to do under the last government.

He called on the government to enforce the existing laws regarding gambling in the Bahamas.

Mr Ingraham was of a different mindset. In Parliament, he said: "This society on a Sunday morning, you go to the gaming houses, to Flowers and those places, and it is like a bank on a payday - government payday. Well either we believe that it is illegal, or we believe that it should be legal. I told the Commissioner of Police last week, that it seems to me that we are unable to enforce the law, and that I was going to give consideration to legalising the number business. Of course he didn't support me in that thinking but the reality is that it is not an enforceable law."

The FNM government is now gone, of course, but in its place stands the PLP, who themselves have promised a referendum on gambling.

In their Charter for Governance, they said: "The 'numbers racket' is nothing new in the Bahamas. The major change, however, is that it has moved from the traditional 'papers for lottery' to virtual 'web shop' casinos. It has been given an aura of legality by online play on various 'Gaming or Lotto' sites, which allow participants to engage in the illegal racket from the comfort of their own home (or office).

"Additionally, more and more people and entities have established these illegal enterprises to the extent that it has become difficult to discern the legitimate businesses from those that are not operating within the ambit of the law.

"Due to the extent to which a large percentage of the population engages in the industry whether directly or indirectly, within the first 100 days in office, a new PLP government will hold a referendum of the general Bahamian population to determine whether it is the desire of Bahamians to legalise the numbers business. A new PLP government will be guided by the results."

Here, then, is one of those rare moments of unity, where politicians on both sides of the divide look at a law and realise it's not working.

Changing it should be simple enough then, yes?

Not necessarily. For it seems almost certain that any such suggestion would meet with strong opposition from the Christian Council.

The concerns there are ethical, that gambling is a sin and can lead to moral decline.

Many of those having what they see as a harmless flutter might laugh at such an idea, but there are those for whom gambling becomes a serious problem, an addiction.

Introducing a national lottery would, it is argued, expose more people to the risk of becoming addicted. There are, I would argue, two fallacies in this.

Firstly, with gambling so widespread, those of such an inclination aren't short of influences already. And secondly, which is the greater perceived moral decline - to become a gambler, or to become a criminal, even if they become a criminal who will never likely be arrested, never be prosecuted?

The Christian Council is not an eccentric outpost in voicing such opposition, of course. Churches in other countries have been equally opposed to the introduction of a national lottery. In England, once the National Lottery there had been approved, the Church of England entered into lengthy discussions on the morality of benefiting from its proceeds. In Mexico, the legalisation of gambling generated problems associated with corruption and drug dealers being lured to the honeypot.

Surprisingly, the Bible has no specific command to avoid gambling. However, the lack of a specific admonishment does not prevent the church from recognising something as a sin, as the changing times bring all manner of changing influences not foreseen in the Bible.

But equally many churches around the world now benefit from lottery funding, helping to pay for repairs or the upkeep of buildings. And there's no end of churches that have benefited from an occasional raffle for their funds. As a Catholic, I've also known plenty of priests who have an occasional flutter at the racecourse.

Before the FNM left office, the then prime minister was talking about a zero tolerance approach to crime. Now that the PLP is in, their Urban Renewal 2.0 programme shares similar goals of cracking down on crime. Their Charter describes the previous Urban Renewal Programme as having "resulted in a renewed sense of loyalty and community spirit as all community members became stakeholders and social standards soared".

But how can you be tough on crime when people pick and choose the laws to obey? Why is it acceptable to break one law but not another? How do you explain that to the next generation, that the law is not a list of instructions that you must follow, but rather a menu from which you can pick and choose?

Lastly, and perhaps crucially given the economic times, a national lottery can help to raise funds for causes that might not otherwise get off the ground. It's here I think the Christian Council's efforts would be best spent - ensuring that after the prize pot is distributed, there is enough money left to do genuine good in the community. To pay for sports facilities for young people. To fund a drug rehabilitation centre for addicts. To help the Ranfurly Home in its good work. To give young people options other than crime.

Many will disagree - and we'll welcome your letters on the subject - but one thing for sure, the time for the debate is now.