Bermudians Against the Draft (B.A.D.) took their fight to the Island's highest court of appeal in London yesterday arguing that conscription is a violation of human rights.

Their lawyer, Jonathan Crow QC, told the Privy Council the Government concedes that making young males, but not females, serve in the Regiment is discriminatory.

However, B.A.D. still failed to convince Bermuda's Supreme Court and Court of Appeal that the discrimination violates human rights and is unlawful.

Seeking to convince the Privy Council panel of five judges that it is and it should be abolished Mr. Crow acknowledged the argument is an unusual one.

"In the field of employment law, allegations of sex discrimination are usually based on complaints that one person, often a man, has been given employment or promotion in preference to another, often a woman," he said.

"In the present case, the position is effectively reversed because here, the complaint is being made on behalf of men on the grounds that they are being given employment.

"The reason why that is a matter of complaint is that the employment is involuntary and the same burden is not being imposed on women. But that is no reason for suggesting that the legislation prohibiting discrimination is inapplicable. It is still discrimination."

He said that the policy breaches the Human Rights Act as the process of recruiting to the Regiment "is to treat men less favourably than women in the employment field, based solely on their sex".

One of the judges, Lord Phillips, described the argument as "bizarre", pointing out that "employment is usually something one desires".

However, Mr. Crow said the B.A.D. case encourages the judges to "get out of that mindset".

One of the other judges, Lady Hale, suggested the policy could also be viewed as discriminatory against Bermudian women. She pointed out that "one of the leading US sex discrimination cases" is based on the fact that women can only volunteer for juries, and not be conscripted onto them.

B.A.D. is a campaign group of 14 men contesting their conscription into the Bermuda Regiment. They hope to get mandatory military service abolished for good.

They first launched the court action in late 2006 but lost earlier hearings in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

The conscription policy is administered by the Defence Department in order to ensure that the Regiment, which was formed in 1965, has enough soldiers to fulfil its functions.

All Bermudian men aged over 18 and under 32 are liable to call-up through a random ballot. They must complete three years and two months of part-time service.

Both men and women can volunteer, although only men can be conscripted. Only a small number of volunteers sign up each year.

Reflecting on that, Mr. Crow argued that Government has not fulfilled its obligation to try to fill the ranks of the Regiment with volunteers.

Pointing to criticisms of the army in recent "Fitness for Role" and Defence Board reviews, Mr. Crow said they demonstrate why there are only a handful of volunteers each year.

"There is a general perception that service in the Regiment is not a worthwhile form of service," he remarked.

He also told the Privy Council there is no evidence Government has taken "reasonable steps" to recruit volunteers including female volunteers before conscripting young men.

The only evidence B.A.D. have found of such an effort is what Mr. Crow described as "some press advertisements in late 2004".

He told the judges: "It knows it can resort to conscription, so it doesn't have to do anything to make the Regiment remotely attractive."

He suggested the reason that other public bodies such as the Police and prison services manage to recruit staff without forcing people to serve is "no doubt because of the package offered".

Mr. Crow also criticised the way Government handled the B.A.D. hearings in the lower courts, refusing to answer questions about issues such as how big the Regiment needs to be and what efforts have been made to recruit volunteers.

Mr. Crow argued that a public body, operating in a manner that takes young men's liberty away, has a legal duty to provide the court with all relevant information.

"We shouldn't have to guess and you shouldn't have to guess and that is because Government is under an obligation of candour," he argued.

He said this was an issue of general importance to Bermuda stretching beyond its particular relevance to this case.

The final argument of the day was what Mr. Crow described as a "relatively dry" point relating to the way Regiment call-up notices have been signed by the Defence Administrator rather than the Deputy Governor, as set out in law. Mr. Crow said that rendered the notices invalid.

Government, which is represented by Rabinder Singh QC, opposes the B.A.D. action and will make its case to the Privy Council today.

Although the Privy Council could indicate its view on the case at the end of today's hearing, B.A.D. founder Larry Marshall said lawyers have warned the ruling could take up to six months to come through.