On January 15, 2008 an article entitled "Conscription Debate" was written by the editor of The Royal Gazette in which a number of points were made pertaining to the issue of conscription.

Some of these points have already been made by the anti-conscription group Bermudians Against the Draft in its effort to abolish this diabolical system masquerading as an institution of discipline and need not to be addressed again.

Other points made contradict the beliefs and assertions of the group and will be addressed accordingly.

The first is that service in the Regiment is not as arduous as some conscription opponents allege. Does not the Regiment pride itself on creating challenges that are indeed arduous in order to make soldiers out of young men.

Eighteen-hour days during which conscripts are cursed, ridiculed and forced to participate in activities designed for legitimate soldiers is generally accepted as arduous by a significant percentage of these who are subjected to such abuse. To spend one night a week after boot camp again being subjected to such conditions in what could accurately be described as a blatant waste of time is also arduous.

When the weekend camps, along with parades on public holidays, for which they are not paid, are factored into the equation the evidence becomes overwhelming. "This newspaper does not oppose the principle of conscription." I would assume the term "this newspaper" refers to the Editor so in essence what was written is his opinion and his alone. It is interesting that one would on the one hand support conscription while on the other hand endorse the "Anti-Slavery International's" Break the Chains campaign.

That very group, which knows that abuse is inevitable under any system of forced labour, opposes compulsory service in the military or any type of forced labour for that matter. Furthermore, the Constitution of Bermuda is supposed to protect our citizens from forced labour but unfortunately does not.

I guess in the editor's distorted way of thinking, forced labour is wrong in other countries yet somehow is allowed in his own. Oh yeah, because we are supposed to have a very high standard of living.

The argument that the Regiment provides discipline and teaches leadership to young people has grown in stature. This assertion is indeed laughable as it flies in the face of fact.

First of all it is the responsibility of parents to instill discipline in their children. Secondly, what you erroneously consider as discipline is nothing but abuse and insults and has no place in a civilised society.

Thirdly, these are grown men, not school children we're talking about. Fourthly, and most significantly, in order to instill discipline an individual must be disciplined themselves. The officers in the Regiment are anything but disciplined as is attested to by how they conduct themselves both locally and especially aboard. Of course you are totally unaware of their overseas escapades.

So to suggest that they are somehow responsible for grooming hundreds of young men over the years is ludicrous. To the contrary. In my opinion, this organisation is instead responsible for corrupting an innumerable amount of impressionable young men to varying degrees. One could even make the argument that this is by far the most counter-productive institution on the Island.

While on the subject, one question: Why is it that the Regiment is quick to take credit for those who have done well that have passed through its ranks while not taking responsibility for those who have gone on and committed crimes?

The latter far out number all of the transformed wall-sitters and the list is made up of thieves, murderers, and guys who like young girls etc. Also, wouldn't the parents get the credit for those who have done good?

The Regiment is one of the best forces for integration. Really! How is having a white officer curse a young black man good for race relations? How is having a disproportionate number of white officers while also having a disproportionate number of black conscripts good for race relations?

It is not according to most young black men who are sick and tired of getting the short end of the stick. They look at the Bermuda Regiment as a legacy of a pass racist government and a form of 21st century slavery not some facilitator of good race relations.

Your editorial ended with the most ridiculous solution to the present dilemma. That conscription, if it was to remain, should be universal for all young men and women. So in other words expand the present system of forced labour so that every young Bermudian can be exploited.

Space does not allow me to do justice to this point so I will simply ask one question. Could you please name one country which practices such a totalitarian and autocratic policy?

The solution to conscription is plain. Freedom!

Editor's Note: Mr. Marshall raises a number of important points in his opinion in response to the Royal Gazette's editorial, and it would take a great deal of space to reply to all of them.

However, three points of clarification are necessary. The first is that this newspaper does not oppose the principle of conscription because there are instances when it may be necessary.

One example would be if Bermuda was in a state of war and under military threat, when there might not be sufficient volunteers to defend the Island. Whether conscription is desirable in peacetime is another question entirely.

Secondly, this newspaper did not justify the current conscription system because of the positive character development that recruits may receive. The editorial argued that whether that's the case or not, it is a side effect of the Regiment's role, and not a role in and of itself.

Thirdly, this newspaper stated that if conscription was to continue, then it would be fairer to have all young people do some form of service rather than the current random selection system.