A group of former Regiment commanders campaigning to keep conscription have been condemned as “misguided former soldiers who have no regard for human rights”.

And the eight ex-servicemen have also come under fire for being “the primary beneficiaries of conscription” who receive “a healthy pension as a result of their previous position”.

Pressure group Bermudians Against the Draft (BAD) launched the counter-attack after the former COs this week announced a campaign to stop Government from abolishing the controversial practice. They argued that it did not violate human rights and that the Bermuda regiment could not survive as a volunteer force. They also said that BAD had made “outlandish statements and should not be given any credence.

But last night BAD’s Larry Marshall questioned the motives of the group and insisted that the “unfair, archaic system” was wrong.

“The eight members of this group are the primary beneficiaries of conscription who, although retired all receive a healthy pension as a result of their previous position,” Mr Marshall said, adding that two of the group received “an astonishing salary of $151,000 per year before retiring”.

“Now to put this exorbitant salary in perspective consider that conscripts are paid an incredibly low wage of approximately $7.25 an hour. That is because they are victims of forced, cheap labour and are therefore not entitled to proper pay. Unfortunately our constitution allows this vicious exploitation of cheap labour that results in a select group benefiting at the expense of others. That is wrong.

“Yet the eight foolishly suggest that ‘conscription does not violate human rights and it does not enslave anyone’, when any right thinking person would conclude that it does indeed violate human rights based on the forced labour conscript are subjected to alone. It might not be slavery but it is certainly very close to it. Former United States President Ronald Reagan likened it to slavery. He also said conscription was morally repugnant to the ideals of a free society and a horrible and costly exception to America’s founding principle of freedom.

Mr Marshall said conscription resulted in the loss of other freedoms, including those of conscience, movement, speech, association, protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, and gender discrimination.

“These are the fundamental human rights which are lost once a young man is conscripted and yet the eight say there is no violation of human rights,” he said.

“Evidently we are dealing with individuals who are intellectually challenged and intellectually dishonest — individuals who have absolutely no respect or regard for human rights and therefore insult the intelligence of the public by claiming there are no violations.

Mr Marshall questioned claims that Bermuda’s security would be compromised if the Regiment disbanded, and said that volunteerism would enable the unit to improve and modernise.

“Bermuda like many countries around the world must now make the transition and is well able to do so primarily because of our size which is actually an asset and makes the process much easier. Proof of this is seen in the example of Gibraltar which, like Bermuda is a British Overseas Dependent Territory. And like Bermuda it has an extremely small population of 28,000, yet a regiment which would put ours to shame. How does this country with a population less than half the size of ours maintain such a superior army? In 1971 they moved from conscription to an army consisting entirely of volunteers.

“Misguided former soldiers who have no regard for human rights should have no say unless they are prepared to acknowledge the past system is wrong. This joint statement is the most compelling evidence as to why conscription needs to be abolished.