Divisive people should be barred from Human Rights Commission — Walwyn
Opposition Leader Myron Walwyn has warned that individuals known for making divisive public statements should not be considered for appointment to the proposed Human Rights Commission.
Walwyn made the remarks during a debate in the House of Assembly last week on the Human Rights Commission Bill 2026, legislation that aims to establish an independent body to receive and investigate complaints of human rights violations in the territory and to promote awareness of human rights issues.
During his contribution to the debate, Walwyn highlighted that proposed rules dictate that Commissioners must have good character, knowledge and be deemed fair. But he said previous discriminatory and divisive public statements should also be considered when people are being considered for appointment.
“There are some people sometimes that speak on the radio. I won’t call their names, but you hear them frothing at the mouth, trying to make certain people believe that they don’t belong in this community, like they’re second class citizens. You have them there. They come on Tuesday time sometimes.” Walwyn said.
He warned that such persons could undermine the work of a body designed to protect residents from discrimination.
“One of the things in the constitution is the protection from discrimination,” Walwyn said. “And if somebody ends up on that commission who would have made previous statements like that, they can’t be nominated.”
Walwyn did not identify the individual he was referencing. However, many observers believe his comments were directed at popular talk show host Claude Skelton Cline, whose “Honestly Speaking” programme airs on Tuesdays and frequently features strong commentary on those deemed ‘Indigenous Virgin Islanders’ and expatriates.
The US model
Walwyn pointed to the United States Senate as a jurisdiction that considers past statements and actions before individuals are appointed to important public roles. He noted that during confirmation hearings for senior officials such as attorneys general or cabinet secretaries, US lawmakers often revisit comments made many years earlier to determine whether a nominee has biases that could affect their judgment.
“Whatever you said 15 years ago, they take it up and put it to you now,” Walwyn said, arguing that such scrutiny helps reveal a person’s true character and whether they can fairly serve in sensitive positions.
He suggested a similar level of consideration should be applied when selecting members of the Human Rights Commission, since their decisions could have far-reaching implications for protecting residents from discrimination and safeguarding constitutional rights.
The Human Rights Commission Bill aims to bring the BVI into line with international standards by establishing a dedicated body to investigate complaints, promote public education on human rights, and advise the government on legislation that may impact those rights.
Copyright 2026 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
We all know who he is referring to. He is right. That man who calls himself a pastor is one of the worse citizens we have in this country. He has contributed nothing to the development of the BVI but through scheming he has benefitted much. Now he wants to make the people who helped to build the BVI from other Caribbean islands and their children feel as if they don’t belong here. Who gave him the right to determine this? People like him should not be on the human rights commission. Walwyn is right. You need decent minded people on that body.
Go sitdon Myron
Stand up Myron, and keep standing up.
This g**f is so desperate to be Premier and the people too blind to see he is just power mad- a complete megalomaniac
Thee white UK and bw Black local commenntators need to up their commenting game. They have become tired and worn.
From boring comments too excessive negative reactions to to truthfu comments such as excessive thumbs illustrate a mind filled with nothing but egativisms.
Watch them as they feeed on this.
You will never be Premier- live with it
I just love Myron! Stand up by yourself if you have to
Human Rights are HUMAN rights – no matter where you come from. There is no levels here – all should be treated as equals. That committee should be devoid of people who believe themselves better than everyone else because of where they are from. It should also be devoid of people who associate with those who readily exploit others…. so not a large selection pool left.
This jacka** is the most divisive man in the bvi thats why he will never be premier
You is the real Tom boy jackets multiply
The BVI population is evolving . It cannot remain static twenty
more years from now, you would hardly have both parents indigenous so no matter how whoever fights you cannot stop evolution and changes
Love overcomes hate
Not hate overcomes love
Mr. Walwyn is correct. Natural justice demands freedom from bias in such matters as human rights. Divisive people display evidence of bias, and conflict of interest. We need balance, and mostly only persons who can be neutral are likely to be fair and balanced in their decisions.
So not all people are to get Human Rights.
ALL of them must go!!!!!!
Quit preaching unity when you are the most divisive politician in the BVI. Once upon a time you thought you could get in by the Island Man vote against Native Virgin Islanders and that failed. Go run your bars Myron and quit it. You do not have what it takes to be Premier.
Whether divisive persons should [not]be on a committee addressing a human rights commission might be a complex issue, there is a need to balance the need for diverse, representative viewpoints against the requirement for productive, respectful, and expert discourse.
Human Rights Committees in my considered opinion should be composed of independent experts with expertise and Integrity who are recognized in the Virgin Islands community for high moral character, competence and experienced in Human Rights. Members must be expected to have a unifying discourse” rather than a divisive one.
There should be a diverse perspective that is valued even though divisive persons can hinder progress, bringing together diverse and sometimes conflicting viewpoints including those from different legal cultures or societal forces can strengthen the legitimacy of the committee’s work according to some perspectives.
If a member is divisive, I would recommend using codes of conduct to set clear expectations of behavior. The chair should manage meetings to ensure healthy debate rather than destructive, personal ego-tripping arguments.
If there is a risk to public trust, Human Rights committee’s legitimacy can be threatened if members’ behavior leads to public mistrust, violates the core purpose of protecting rights, or even foster a hostile environment.
There should be a focus on inclusion. The goal of any Human Rights Committee must be to promote human rights, which often includes ensuring that all voices—especially marginalized ones—are heard, which can be difficult if a member is creating intense, unproductive conflict. Ultimately, if a person’s behavior is disruptive and hampers the committee’s ability to fulfill its mission, it should be and must be recommended that they be managed through clear, enforced codes of conduct, or in extreme cases, removed.