Once again, the Bermuda Regiment's annual recruit camp has given added impetus to the debate on conscription.

Aside from the camp itself, a Supreme Court case challenging the very principle of conscription is getting closer and anti-conscription activists are also making submissions to a House of Commons committee on the state of Britain's Overseas Territories.

This newspaper does not oppose the principle of conscription. Citizenship carries responsibilities as well as rights, and any government must reserve the right to call on its citizens to defend their country.

Nor is service in the Regiment as arduous as some of conscription's opponents allege. It is not especially time-consuming, and while there is some discomfort, it is not overwhelming. If there are abuses, they should be investigated and dealt with quickly, but the general sense is that it is a well run organisation.

Nonetheless, the justification for peacetime conscription is getting harder and harder to make, especially given the randomness of selection and just what the Regiment's purpose is. The Bermuda of 2008 is very different from the Bermuda of 30 years ago, when it was reeling from the December, 1977 riots - the last major civil disturbance the Island has faced.

And even if there was a recurrence of those events, a case can be made that a professional platoon (roughly 40 soldiers) would be more effective than the two companies of conscript soldiers who are now tasked with controlling rioters. Beyond its internal security role, the Regiment has a ceremonial role which it performs superbly, but is hardly a justification for demanding the part-time services of young men for three years.

As we said in this space last year, the Regiment's major function has been as a disaster relief organisation, both in Bermuda and overseas. Again, the Regiment has done very well in this role. but it begs the question of whether a military force is really best fitted for this kind of role.

Two functions have been suggested for the Regiment. One is to provide Coast Guard style services, which has great merit, but is never acted on. The other is to provide security at Government buildings and to relieve Policemen of these duties. This has less merit. Neither Policemen nor soldiers should be doing this duty. Security guards should.

As the Regiment's actual function has diminished, so the argument that it provides discipline and teaches leadership to young people has grown in stature. It is a decent case, and there hundreds of people around the community who can willingly attest to the benefits of having been in the Regiment.

Similarly, it now provides additional educational opportunities and perhaps most importantly, the Regiment - in spite of having its own occasional internal racial problems - is one of the best forces for integration, both in terms of class and race, the Island has.

But none of these benefits are reasons for being for the Regiment, and not as a result of its role. And there are, or could be, other organisations that can provide them as well or better. And the random nature of who gets picked to receive them is also questionable.

This newspaper maintains, as it has for some time, that if there is to be conscription, then it should be universal for young men and women, and that a number of organisations - including the Regiment ¿should receive recruits to provide community service.

But the Regiment should not continue to exist on the basis of its reduced role and its supposed character-building function

It needs to demonstrate a real purpose from which the community as a whole benefits, and it should do so soon.