Businessman and political gadfly Tony Brannon's claims last week that "black Bermudians", egged on by the Bermuda Industrial Union, were responsible for the decline of tourism in the 1990s, have rightly been condemned.

Bigotry and racism stem from the stereotyping of people of a particular race, ethnicity or religion in a derogatory way. From there, it is a short step to segregation and organised racism based on the perceived weaknesses or failures of one group and the perceived superiority of another.

Last week Mr. Brannon took a step in that direction when he blamed "black Bermudians" for tourism's decline. The fact that Mr. Brannon took such great umbrage last year when former Premier Alex Scott said words to the effect that he was not going to answer to people who look like Mr. Brannon makes his actions now all the worse. Mr. Brannon has no right to accuse others of racism and then display the same behaviour.

Nor does it matter that Mr. Brannon says that for some reason he wanted to debate the role of the BIU, whose membership and leadership are predominantly black, in the decline of tourism. As soon as he turned this into a racial issue, the chance for a reasoned debate was over.

Mr. Brannon has belatedly apologised but that it is unlikely to be the end of it. He has hurt race relations in this community and has given ammunition to those who would like to curtail freedom of speech through his statements.

That's unfortunate because threats to freedom of speech are growing. That is demonstrated by the case of King Edward VII Memorial Hospital physician Dr. Catherine Wakely who lost her job because she wrote a letter to the Editor about the closure of the Indigent Clinic, now known as the Medical Clinic.

In reality, the letter was uncontroversial and said nothing that had not been said before. But that did not stop the Bermuda Hospitals Board from demanding her resignation. Dr. Wakely's sin seems to have been to have gone public with her concerns when she was employed by the hospital and still on probation, and apparently, to oppose the Government's position on the issue, since it is hard to believe that if she had written a letter supporting the closure, she would have been asked to resign.

Most organisations have rules about employees speaking out, and there are good practical reasons for this. It is also one of the reasons why so many people write to this newspaper under pen names, and after Dr. Wakely's experience, who can blame them?

But demanding her resignation when she simply expressed her opinion on an issue where there are strong arguments for and against closure is extreme.

All hospital employees should now know that basic human rights ? like freedom of expression ? are not permitted within the hospital grounds.