The protagonists have had a field day recently with their outlandish remarks trying to convince Bermudians, (in particular our elected members in parliament) that we should have gambling in Bermuda. Frankly the more I listen to them the more I am convinced that gambling would be very bad for Bermuda.

Let's begin with the statement of Mr. Norman Mastalir, the head of the Fairmont hotels in Bermuda, that gaming could "attract up to 100,000 more visitors per year and increase hotel occupancy from the 52 percent experienced last year to the high 70s", and "visitor spending could be boosted by $30 million to $50 million". Mr. Mastalir knows there is no such statistic, if there is, he should quote the source, as Graham Faiella (a solid Bermudian who cares about Bermuda) asked in his letter today. I regard it as an exaggerated opinion designed, as is most of the report on gambling and the green paper, to encourage Bermudians to support gambling without giving any thought to the long term detrimental effects that gambling could have on our Island home.

Mr. Mastalir made a passionate call, he said, "for goodness sakes, let's save the tourism industry, let's save the jobs and tour boats and everyone who depends on this industry for their livelihood and on this business being viable as we go forward". I wish to assure Mr. Mastalir that every Bermudian is as passionate and concerned to save our tourism industry and to see our hotels succeed as he is. The difference is we believe not enough is done by our top hotel and tourism officials including Government to regenerate our tourism industry. These industry leaders seem to know it all and no longer listen to or are interested in what the average Bermudian has to say.

As Graham Faiella said: "Tourism in Bermuda needs imaginative people to recreate an industry based on Bermuda's natural and unique resources, including its people, and I would add a more effective marketing effort. Instead, so much time, effort, and money has been wasted on chasing gambling just because everybody else is doing it, and the power of vested interests".

The proponents of gambling do not seem to understand that it will not attract the numbers of people to Bermuda that they predict. It will take much more to make Bermuda the attractive destination it can be. Gambling will detract from that in my view. Why should people fly to Bermuda to gamble when they can drive next door to gamble in facilities far more attractive then anything we can build? In fairness, it will offer those tourists that do come to Bermuda an entertainment alternative, but that will not be enough to sustain a casino, nor will it help the hotels if it is to be located in Hamilton only.

Alas! It is that paragraph in the report and in the green paper permitting Bermudians to gamble that will sustain the casino, and it is that which will destroy the social and moral fabric of Bermuda. "Legalised gambling" is bad social policy. Gamblers Anonymous estimates there are 12 million compulsive gamblers in the United States. The percentage of compulsive gamblers in Bermuda will be low by comparison now, but it does not take much imagination to expect the number of compulsive gamblers in Bermuda will quickly rise should we have legalised gambling.

Legalised gambling is bad government policy. Government should promote public virtue, not seduce its citizens to join in state-sponsored vice. Government's moral authority is compromised when it promotes or enters into a gambling enterprise. Instead of being a positive moral positive force in society, Government contributes to the corruption of society.

When the late Dame Lois Browne-Evans and Frederick Wade led the Progressive Labour Party Government they and the party were vehement opponents of gambling. They opted to protect the morality of Bermuda instead, and for this they were very much admired. This policy of the PLP opposing gambling as a political party and then government continued through to Dame Jennifer Smith and Alex Scott's time. It is only since Dr. Ewart Brown became the Premier that a portion of his government has pushed for a change in gambling policy. This is bound to raise serious questions within the party. It would seem that those within the party, who are opposed to gambling have not spoken out publicly out of respect for their leader.

Dr. Brown said some very disturbing things in a meeting which I attended last week, some of which was reported in the press. Since it was given to the press, obviously by the Premier or his press secretary, he has made it possible for others to comment. I noted that only the good part of the Premier's presentation was given to the press, and not that which could be called controversial.

The Premier was asked about the time line for the introduction of gambling to be decided by the House of Parliament.

He indicated in his answer that he would like to see it done before he left office on October 31. His timeline was to debate the green paper on Friday week and this would be followed by a White Paper and the legislation to be introduced to the Parliament in May.

This indicates that the Premier will move forward to a White Paper and legislation no matter what the consensus of the Green Paper debate is and even if a majority of members are opposed to legalised casino gambling.

The Premier was also asked if gambling would be extended to other hotels, clubs, and bars.

His answer was that that had not been considered, but what he would like to see was slot machines given to the sports clubs and the workmen's clubs.

This would help them to finance their programmes which presently are supported by the sale of liquor, he said.

The worrying part of the Premier's answer is that Government already sends the wrong message to our young people by advocating gambling for Bermuda, but to place slot machines in sports clubs and workmen's clubs where young people congregate would amount to nothing short of setting up gambling apprenticeships to encourage young people into gambling.

That statement coming from our Premier was most disturbing. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, since very often when you are speaking off the cuff answering questions you do not always have time to think things through. Perhaps in a more sobering time he will realise that was not the thing to have said.

One other interesting bit of news the Premier referred to was when answering the question about ownership. He said there will be a portion owned by a foreign entity and a portion owned by Bermudians. It would not necessarily follow the 60:40 policy, that still has to be worked out.

Mr. Editor, several people trying to make a case for legalised gambling in Bermuda have referred to other jurisdictions and suggested Bermuda should follow their example. Mr. John Jefferis from the Coco Reef Hotel suggests we should follow the Monte Carlo model, others suggest we should follow the Niagara Falls model and still others say have look at the Bahamas.

The Government actually brought the Minister responsible for gambling in the Bahamas to Bermuda to speak to our elected members. The truth is Mr. Editor, neither of those models suits Bermuda's uniqueness. Monte Carlo has a huge yachting industry. It also has customers who can drive over from France to spend the day or the evening. Bermuda has neither.

Likewise Niagara has the Falls, a very big attraction in addition to gambling. You'll recall that Niagara Falls was a big attraction long before gambling came along. They too are also able to have people drive down from Toronto and other parts of Canada and the United States to visit. Bermuda does not have that. And then there is the Bahamas. First, Atlantis is much, much more than just a casino.

They have a vast infrastructure which caters to the entire family, there are many attractions for children and family members. In addition they have the day trippers, people that come over from Miami by the hundreds to spend the day or a couple of days and they are back home in a couple of hours. Bermuda does not have that and isn't likely to get it any time soon.

The point is, Mr. Editor, people will say anything to fool the public about gambling and sometimes stretch the truth. The other point that becomes obvious is that we have a lot of work to do on our infrastructure before we will again be a prime tourist destination. There is much to consider, yachting, family and children's attractions, promoting Bermuda as a diving destination, it is about changing the entire paradigm of our tourism industry, etc.

In conclusion, Mr. Editor, I am strongly opposed to gambling and always have been. I believe legalised gambling will have a corrupting influence on our society. Gambling adversely affects the country's economy. Legalised gambling depresses businesses, because it diverts money that could have been spent in the capital economy into gambling, which does not stimulate the economy. Boarded-up businesses surrounding casinos are a grim reminder of that. Money that could be invested, loaned, recycled through the economy, spent on children's clothing, in our restaurants, is instead risked in a legalised gambling scheme. More money in the United States is spent on gambling than is spent on elementary and secondary education ($286 billion versus $213 billion in 1990)according to historian John Ezel's book 'Fortune's Merry Wheel'.

I agree with the statement made by Kirby Anderson of The Probe Ministries. "Christians should be concerned about gambling if for no other reason than the effect it has on our weaker brothers and sisters and how it will affect the compulsive gambler. State sponsored gambling makes it harder for the compulsive gambler to reform. Legalised gambling becomes an institutionalised form of greed".

Finally, Mr. Editor, there isn't enough time to talk about the social and economic detrimental impact that legalised gambling ultimately has on a community, particularly a small closed community such as Bermuda.

It certainly will not help the crime scene in Bermuda. Nor is there enough time to talk about the political implications. We should not be so naïve to think legalised gambling will be confined to a casino, with the hotels, bars and some restaurants, and those who were in the industry previously, all wishing to enhance their businesses with gambling. It will be politically difficult to confine slot machines to the casino only, and remember slot machines are the most addictive tool in legalised gambling.

The true impact of legalised gambling is often hidden from the citizens who decide to participate. But later these costs show up in the shattered lives of individuals and their families. Legalised gambling most often hurts those who are poor and disadvantaged.

It sends the wrong message to our youth and it shatters family lives. Families are torn apart by strife, divorce, and bankruptcy. There is no doubt of the destructive effect of gambling on family life. The corrosive effects of gambling attacks both white-collar and blue-collar families with equal vigour.

Bermuda should strenuously reject legalised gambling and work together to find better ways to save our hotels and tourist industry.