In his article "The case for conscription" in today's Royal Gazette, Al Seymour suggests that the Bermuda Regiment is essential for teaching discipline to some young Bermudian men and women. It's probably the most commonly heard argument in support of conscription, yet it's illogical and disputed by some former senior officers.
If the purpose of the Regiment is to teach discipline, then surely only those who need it, male and female, should be sent there? What is the purpose of sending those whose family, schools and neighbours have already done the job?
The thing is, the purpose of the Regiment is not to teach discipline. Former Bermuda Regiment commanding officer Eugene Raynor, a supporter of conscription, recently said, "The army needs productive people in order to do what they have to do. If you are able to sort out a few on the side that's fine and that's been going on all along. It's not the role or intent for people going into the Regiment to be sorted out."
If the Regiment itself does not see teaching discipline as it's raison d'etre, how can anyone else justify its existence on that basis?
