Governor assents to Human Rights Commission Act, 2026
The Human Rights Commission Bill, 2026, which was provided for in the 2007 Constitution but never before approved by the House of Assembly (HoA), was passed with amendments in the HoA in April 2026.
The Human Rights Commission, when formed, will be tasked with investigating and reconciling complaints about human rights violations. It will also be responsible for informing the public about constitutional rights and providing advice on human rights-related procedures and policy.
“As we seek to mature as a people with some degree of self-governance, we have recognised the importance of building institutions which safeguard and protect our people,” Premier and Minister of Finance Dr the Honourable Natalio D. Wheatley (R7) stated in 2025, regarding the Human Rights Commission Bill.
.png)
_(Small).jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Follow Us On
9 Responses to “Governor assents to Human Rights Commission Act, 2026”
"Virgin Islander" is defined and, broadly, means that for persons born in recent decades [40s and younger I think] they must have some generational heritage in the territory. They are the only ones who are permitted to stand for election.
"How is it that foreigners are permitted to acquire more than the two acres of land allowed by law?" I don't know about this law, but the local laws are all made by persons who fall within the definition of "Virgin Islander". There is an election coming up next year so Virgin Islanders and Belongers can vote them out and put in more suitable "Virgin Islanders" if the view is that there's a problem.
"Additionally, why does the constitution fail to clearly differentiate between the rights of belongers and those of ancestral Virgin Islanders?" It says nothing about whatever "ancestral Virgin Islanders" means. Again, it does have very clear differentiation between "Virgin Islanders" and all others. So much so that a young person can be born and raised here and be a Belonger but never be eligible to run for the House of Assembly. What an achievement that is! It's clearly serving the territory well given the calibre of politicians it's contributed to.
I agree that the Constitution does not presently define “ancestral Virgin Islander.” My point is that it should. There is a significant difference between someone who qualifies as a Virgin Islander under the Constitution today and someone whose family has lived in these islands since before or immediately after emancipation. Those historic families have unique cultural, historical and social ties to the Territory that deserve stronger legal recognition and protection. While our Cultural Policy recognizes the importance of preserving Virgin Islands heritage and identity, it has not been meaningfully implemented or consistently enforced. As a result, many of the protections and priorities intended to safeguard our cultural heritage remain largely unrealized.
Likewise, while non-belongers must obtain a Non-Belonger’s Land Holding Licence to acquire land, many residents remain concerned that the current system has allowed increasing concentrations of land ownership outside the ancestral population. It has long been my understanding that non-belongers were limited by law to purchasing no more than two acres of land. If that understanding is no longer correct because the law has changed, or if it was only ever a policy rather than a statutory requirement, then the people of the Virgin Islands deserve to be informed. Transparency on such an important issue is essential to maintaining public confidence in the management of our most valuable and finite resource—our land. There is also growing concern that increasing amounts of land are being marketed and sold on the open real estate market to the highest bidder, placing ownership beyond the financial reach of many ancestral Virgin Islanders. If that trend continues, future generations may find themselves unable to own land in the country their families have called home for generations. This is a human rights issue.
At the same time, many ancestral Virgin Islanders are leaving because wages have not kept pace with the rising cost of housing and living. Meanwhile, more persons continue to acquire rights through birth and other lawful means. If these trends continue unchecked, the descendants of the Territory’s historic families will inevitably become a smaller proportion of the population. That is not simply a demographic issue; it is a cultural, social and economic concern that deserves serious national discussion. A country cannot preserve its identity if the very people who have sustained its heritage for generations are increasingly unable to afford to live and thrive in their own homeland.
At the same time, many ancestral Virgin Islanders are leaving because wages have not kept pace with the rising cost of housing and living. Meanwhile, more persons continue to acquire rights through birth and other lawful means. If these trends continue unchecked, the descendants of the Territory’s historic families will inevitably become a smaller proportion of the population. That is not simply a demographic issue; it is a cultural, social and economic concern that deserves serious national discussion. A country cannot preserve its identity if the very people who have sustained its heritage for generations are increasingly unable to afford to live and thrive in their own homeland.
Whether intentional or not, the cumulative effect of these policies and economic realities is that many ancestral Virgin Islanders feel they are being displaced from meaningful ownership and participation in the future of their own country. As opportunities to own land, secure affordable housing and build generational wealth become increasingly out of reach, many are forced to leave. This raises important questions of fairness, equality and the protection of the cultural heritage and identity of the Virgin Islands. These are issues that deserve careful public discussion and thoughtful policy solutions.
On those who qualify as Virgin Islanders under the Constitution, you say they fall into two camps: (i) those who can trace ancestral roots here back to the 1830s; (ii) those who can't. You ask us to believe that that's a big difference. Firstly, I don't believe that at all. That's for obvious, non-legalistic reasons. No one goes around asking where your ancestors were two centuries ago. And most of us barely know where they were back then. It's of historical interest, certainly, but irrelevant otherwise. More importantly though, from a legalistic perspective it is no basis for promoting policies that discriminate between different groups of citizens.
On whether non-citizens should even be allowed to visit the Virgin Islands as tourists on vacation, never mind invest their money in real estate here, those are legitimate questions. Good for you if, as a citizen, you vote in a new government democratically & it decides to call a halt to all of that. Those would be anti-foreigner policies, certainly. But that's nothing to do with discrimination against actual citizens of the territory. So far, the elected politicians have not opted to turn Virgin Islands into North Korea… However, I don't argue against the idea that they can and should change polices when they think fit for their citizens (not just some of their citizens).
Virgin Islands has 58 square miles. Persons from here are naturally going to leave a lot of the time. Many people do not want to spend their entire lives in one small place. Others encounter problems like you mentioned. Thankfully, citizens here have good passports and great opportunities to migrate if they want to. There has always been and will be in the future turnover of population in such a tiny area. Aiming to end that ignores basic realities. And thankfully, if they do migrate, they are unlikely to migrate to a jurisdiction that tries to discriminate against them based on where their ancestors were two centuries earlier...
You've mentioned persons being born here. The birth rate here is incredibly low. Population pyramids of the VI across decades are remarkable. There's roughly the same number of births here as there was in the 1970s pr 1980s but the population is multiples of that. That is a real demographic issue. Like most places, increasingly large numbers of females do not become mothers. For me personally, that is a sad feature of our modern society. It ought to be talked about more I think, instead of distractions like "ancestral" this or that aimed merely at sowing division amongst citizens of the same place.