The Privy Council decision on Monday to reject Bermudians Against the Draft's arguments against conscription means that the Bermuda Regiment can continue in its current state, at least for now.

But the ruling was by no means clear cut and it should give both the Government and the Bermuda Regiment a good deal to think about.

BAD was appealing on two points. One was that the Regiment had not tried hard enough to recruit volunteers before conscripting soldiers. The second was that by only conscripting men, the Regiment was discriminating.

The Privy Council largely took the case on the second point, and upheld the Government, but mainly on a fine legal point; essentially that because the Regiment permitted women to volunteer for the Regiment, it could not be discriminating, even if it only conscripted men.

But Baroness Hale, in postscript to the judgment, did note that on the face of it, the fact that only men could be conscripted was unfair, adding: "It is hard to think of a more obvious case of sex discrimination than to oblige the members of one sex to join the armed forces of their country while allowing members of the other to choose whether or not to do so."

She therefore recommended that amendments to the Human Rights Act be considered.

Baroness Hale is entirely right. It's mind-boggling that a policy that is clearly discriminatory is acceptable under the law because of the way the Human Rights Act is drafted.

So Government should review the Act to be certain that it does what it says it will do: guarantee rights and prevent discrimination.

The Government also needs to decide what kind of military it wants.

Does it want several hundred part-time soldiers whose primary roles are to support the Police in internal security, to assist in emergencies and to take part in ceremonial events?

Or does it want a smaller, more professional force that might still fill some of those functions, but will also take on other roles, including some form of coast guard function?

These are not simple issues. There has long been a concern that the Regiment's internal security role is losing relevance.

And yet, to some degree, the Regiment acts as a deterrent to civil disorder and riots. And recent events in Jamaica suggest that you cannot be too complacent.

But there is an argument that a smaller, more professional force that might fill the same functions as or more effectively while taking on other roles, including marine functions. Aside from search and rescue, this could include drug interdiction.

The main objection to this would be cost. The Regiment is relatively cheap to operate whereas a professional force, even one which was much smaller, would be vastly more expensive.

And the positive social aspects of the Regiment must also be weighed in the balance, even if these are not a direct part of its role. But teaching discipline, giving young men and women structure, forcing people from different backgrounds to work together and make lifelong friendships are all part of the sum benefits of the Regiment and should not be sneezed at.

Still, if wholesale changes are not going to be made soon, there's another way to defuse the discrimination argument; start drafting women as well.