soldiers from their premises when they are wearing fatigues is sad example of discrimination.

Perhaps these bars have had problems in the past with the behaviour of some Regiment soldiers, but banning their mandatory clothing is hardly the way to quell bad behaviour.

Assuming that anyone is going to behave poorly on the basis of outward appearance is the very essence of discrimination.

To say that discriminating on the basis of clothing is not of the same degree as discriminating on the basis of race or gender or eye colour or height -- things that cannot easily be shed -- is fair.

Every local establishment with a "smart casual'' requirement indulges in this form of clothing discrimination to a certain degree but the Regimental uniform ban goes a step further in attempting to exclude a whole group of people.

People, who through no concerted action of their own -- they are conscripted after all -- are thrown together into service for their Country.

One of the great strengths of the Regiment throughout the years has been that it brings young men from all walks of life together in the spirit of equality.

The Regiment conscripts must learn to work with and rely on one another whether black or white, rich or poor, students, professionals or labourers.

Among other things, the uniform serves to make them equal.

When the soldiers go out socially after putting in their time at Warwick Camp, they are bonding on another level, much like any people in any work place bond when they go out after work to chat and exchange ideas, observations and laughter.

When the Regiment soldiers go out together they interact with other young men with whom they might never have otherwise crossed paths.

Send them home to change into their street clothes and aspects of communication and interaction which should be encouraged will be lost.

People will drift off into their own much more narrow groupings and traditional hangouts. The barriers that are erased by common Regiment experience will go back up and an opportunity for the young men to grow together as a community is lost.

The uniform ban is short-sighted. The young men of the Regiment should be encouraged rather than discriminated against.

One might as well ban all journalists if they have their pens or all business people if they wear their suits or all tourists if their clothing mismatches (or worse yet matches their spouse's clothing).

Do the establishments plan a similar ban for soldiers aboard the NATO ships that occasionally dock in Bermuda? Did they implement similar bans when the crews of the Tall Ships frequented their establishments last summer? Why then attempt to further discourage Regiment conscripts, many of whom already see their time in service of their Country as a burden? Technically, dress codes for men tend to stress that: shirts have collars -- which the uniform shirts do; jeans not be worn -- also not a problem here; and and, that proper shoes be worn. Pair the spit-polished boots of the Regiment soldiers with a pair of khakis and would anyone object? The argument that the uniform flies against regular dress codes therefore doesn't hold water.

It is encouraging to see that two of the seven establishments that were originally involved in the ban have already backed away from it.

Let's hope the other establishments involved also choose to remove this divisive and discriminatory ban.