Premier Dr. Ewart Brown's announcement on Friday that Government will hire a US public relations firm to counter negative publicity bears all the hallmarks of "shooting the messenger" syndrome. It also begs the question of what magical powers this agency will have that his own very capable press secretary, the staff of the Department of Communication and Information and the Government TV station do not.

Dr. Brown's appears to believe the move is necessary because there is a grand conspiracy between some of the media and the Opposition United Bermuda Party to damage the reputation of Bermuda, and more particularly the Progressive Labour Party Government.

When Dr. Brown was combatting allegations in the Bermuda Housing Corporation Police investigation, he said he would not answer those allegations because they were tantamount to being asked when "you stopped beating your wife".

Much the same argument can be made with regard to "conspiracy" claims; this newspaper can say there is no conspiracy – and there is not – but simply by floating the idea, Dr. Brown gives it currency. As has been said here before, the Opposition is entitled to question the legitimacy of tax concessions given to hoteliers, as in the case of the Coco Reef concessions order. The Government should be able to answer them.

One would hope that that is the advice that a public relations firm would give to any Government; the best solution to any criticism is to answer it quickly and forthrightly. The greater problem comes when governments refuse to answer questions, and in this government's case, go as far as cutting of debate, or appearing to dodge questions by using technicalities, as in the case of the Opposition's perfectly legitimate questions on Government travel.

What makes the latter case worse is that the Opposition's travel questions are now about a year old. They were tabled last year before the House was first dissolved early for the summer break and then met only for the Throne Speech before being dissolved again. Now Dr. Brown wants the questions taken off the table on the basis that they were asked in the last Parliament. Never mind that Dr. Brown and Finance Minister Paula Cox both answered questions on Government travel in 2003 after that general election. Now the rules have changed.

Rightly or wrongly, this suggests that, for whatever reason, Dr. Brown wants to avoid answering the questions. No amount of PR, no matter how good the agency, can fix that problem.

Black power

In its relatively short life, the Voters Rights Association has proven to be a valuable organisation for promoting ideas about good government and how Bermuda's system of governance can be improved.

These are worthy areas of debate at any time, and often take time to germinate and take root. Its leaders, Geoff Parker and Stuart Hayward, can certainly not be accused of party political partisanship – they have no ties with either major party and have shown they are quite capable of disagreeing with both.

In general, the VRA also supports the ideas of freedom of expression and freedom of information, and this newspaper shares common ground with it on those questions. However, the VRA is wrong in its call for the black power salute to be banned in Bermuda. It is simply historically inaccurate to equate the black power salute with hideous racist symbols like the swastika and cross burning.

While it is true that some black nationalist and black separatist organisations have adopted the salute, its genesis lies with efforts in the civil rights movement to bring about equal rights for blacks. Indeed, it is best known for its use at the 1968 Olympic Games by black American athletes. That act may have horrified some at the time, but few people today would say that John Carlos and Tommie Smith were wrong to make the statement.

That is not to say that people are obliged to agree with its use today, or to question whether it is appropriate in the Bermuda political arena.

But any limitations on freedom of expression (which can include salutes, peace signs and the like) should only be taken very carefully, and the VRA should drop this idea, not least because of the risk of having the rest of its otherwise admirable programme tarnished because of it. As ever, it must be remembered that there is no problem with freedom of expression when everyone agrees with a point of view; it's when they don't that it matters.