Charity concerned as free trade is used to defend internet gambling
Social policy charity CARE has called on the EU to do everything in its power to cooperate constructively with the US following its offer of compensation for trade loss resulting from the American ban on internet gambling.
by Jennifer Gold
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 8:21 (BST)
Social policy charity CARE has called on the EU to do everything in its power to cooperate constructively with the US following its offer of compensation for trade loss resulting from the American ban on internet gambling.
CARE, which has major reservations about the way in which 'free trade' is being used to defend internet gambling, is keen to see a swift and equitable resolution that in no way undermines the US ban.
In 2005 the World Trade Organisation upheld Antigua's claim that the United States ban on internet gambling was in violation of its free trade commitments. The US asserts that it never intended to commit to free trade in gambling and has invoked the WTO process for modifying its trade commitments to clarify its intention to restrict gambling.
In response, a number of countries and the EU have sought compensation.
Last Wednesday, the United States offered the EU a compensation package that would give the EU access to new, non-gambling sectors of the US market. The offer has been considered and discussions are ongoing.
Daniel Boucher CARE's director of parliamentary affairs stated, "The idea that we should use 'free trade' as a mechanism for championing internet gambling is a big mistake if the international community is genuinely serious about promoting sustainable development. Countries banning internet gambling should not be deemed to be 'protectionist' but rather free traders in a moral, 'social environment' friendly framework."
He continued, "Far from seeking compensation for the US ban on internet gambling, we believe that the EU and other forward thinking nations should introduce a similar ban. Of all forms of gambling, internet gambling is one of the most dangerous because people can participate anytime 24-7 from the privacy of their home. There is no need to overcome the obstacle of getting to a casino and no one needs to know you gamble or for how long."
He went on to speak about the British Gambling Prevalence Study, which shows that problem gambling prevalence for internet gambling is higher than for most other forms of gambling.
Boucher concluded: "The need for a ban was very helpfully put in focus last Wednesday by the publication of the British Gambling Prevalence Study which demonstrates that sadly there has been no drop in the number of problem gamblers in the UK during the last eight years and that 'problem gambling' is particularly high amongst internet gamblers."
Copyright © 2009 Christian Today. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The comments below are readers' personal opinions and are in no way intended to reflect the editorial opinion of Christian Today.
Added: Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 16:06 (BST)
Gambling is NOT trade!!!!
Put aside all the hype from the gambling interests.and just think about it from a clear perspective.
Gambling is when two or more parties want to take what belongs to another or others without the other or others wanting to give it to the other(s) freely as in a gift or reward or without earning, buying or trading for it. EACH party enters into gambling with the expectation of winning. (Otherwise, they would just fork over the money or item of value.)
Gambling has long been described as theft and really seems to fit that definition.
Gambling interests have been the promoters of gambling as "entertainment" and for them it is. They are watching the gullible gamblers scramble to "beat the odds" while they know that they will rake in their cut of the wagers!
What we have are bookies salivating over the spoils.
Before ANY gambling is sanctioned by any government, the question asked should be: "Does "legalizing" or "licensing" gambling fit the role of government to protect its citizens from predators?" The answer is a resounding "NO!" No matter who "benefits", what kind of gambling it is or where it is done.
Of course, it takes GOOD, transparent government to make this kind of decision.
Dianne M. Berlin, Penryn, PA, USA
Added: Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 15:08 (BST)
Your facts seem to be somewhat skewed. Internet gambling is allowed in the U.S. for certain types of gambling. Horseracing, Lotteries, Tribal Indians and inter-casino jackpots. As such, the US is in fact violating treaties made during the Uruguay Round of talks at the WTO, and the US may comply by simply banning all internet and telephone wagering within its borders, or open up the industry to foreigners. In no way have foreign countries sought to create a new service industry, as it already exists. The U.S., by banning the transfer of funds to foreign companies, is being protectionist.
craig uttariello, coral springs, USA
