Arnhim Eustace fired Anesia as a senator. More than likely, she will also be expelled from the NDP. Meanwhile, Anesia has given the world the impression that she does not know why she was fired. She has asked her supporters and sympathizers to wait on Mr Eustace’s explanation on Monday (23 April 23, 2012)

Anesia has deceitfully refused to tell her supporters about the 11 page letter she wrote to Eustace blasting him and the leadership of the NDP.  Based on the contents of that letter, Eustace should have kicked her ass out immediately!

Read the letter here and judge for yourself.


Anesia O. Baptiste

Belair, C/O P.O. Box 2622, St. Vincent.



Hon. Arnhim Eustace & The Strategy Committee

New Democratic Party


17th April, 2012

Dear Hon. Eustace & the Strategy Committee,

Following the meeting held today Tuesday 17th April, 2012 at the NDP Headquarters I write to express the following sentiments concerning the policy position you dictated to the meeting.

After indicating that a statement was made by Shefflorn Ballantyne on Cross Country Radio, with which you said you were unhappy, you proceeded to indicate that it is the policy of the New Democratic Party that no candidate or potential candidate of the party should make any public statements which are averse to any religion. You also said that if you have to take action you will and that you do not care who it is you will have to take action against. When I sought clarification on the matter, raising a concern about the anti-religious liberty characteristic of the policy position you dictated, the meeting became a discussion on the matter at some length. At one point I attempted to share with the meeting the tape recording of Mr. Ballantyne’s actual words because I felt Hon. St. Clair Leacock was misrepresenting what Ballantyne had said. However I was not able to do so after it seems there was something wrong with the computer Senator Vynnette Frederick offered to use to give amplified sound to the tape that I was ready to play. Senator Frederick simply returned the recording device to me (I am not sure why) and nobody showed interest in pursuing hearing the tape afterwards.


What Shefflorn Ballantyne Really Said

The first thing I am pleased to do is provide a transcript of the actual words spoken by Mr. Ballantyne on the program “Cross Country Meets the Media” on Cross Country Radio on Saturday night 7th April, 2012. A truly intelligent position can only be arrived at having heard Mr. Ballantyne’s words as they were used in their context. I present his words from the time he entered the studio and any interchange from other panelists along the way:

Shefflorn Ballantyne: “Yeah, goodnight to you St. Vincent and the Grenadines and goodnight to ahmm members of the panel. Once again, thank you…for having me on tonight Joel. Ahmm, good night to everybody. I…I don’t know if opening statements mean I go straight into…

Joel Abraham (Moderator): Yeah, go straight..yes, yes.

Shefflorn Ballantyne: Alright. Ahmm, in the papers this week, ahmm I’ll begin with the News Newspaper, I heard a bit of the comments while… on..on my way. First of all, let me apologise for being late, right..I’m just coming straight from church…

Joel Abraham: I did that already for you…(laughter)

Shefflorn Ballantyne: yeah, ahmm the front page of the…of the News “PM condemns Satanic Cult- People could get injured through them” And below that you have “Satanic Cult creates stir”. I read this article..I,I, I read this article this week. I read the first article in the week in the News last week and I find that there is a very strong level of hypocrisy in our society. I do not know who…who this group is that they are referring to. Based upon the article from last week.’s alleged that the woman who is leading the group declares herself to be neither male nor female and that she is divine and she takes an angelic form or something to that effect. Ahmm and you have a public outcry from the general public and even the Prime Minister weighing in. But, my issue here is that here you are branding a group as being a cult and the group bears certain characteristics that are shared by the Roman Catholic Church itself. Take for instance, her cl…her alleged claim that she is divine is a claim that is repeated by the very office of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. They themselves say outright that they are… Pope Leo for instance declared that he is god on earth and the very office ‘Vicarius Filii Dei’- the vicar of the son of God- is one that identifies the holder of that office as a substitute Christ. So, when we are thinking of the injury that can take place by persons following certain religious groups or doctrine, we must not be hypocritical about it. We look at the Evangelical religions as well and back in the year 1900, they would have been seen in the very same light as this little group is being seen. I am not endorsing this group, I do not believe that any human being is divine, I do not believe that a human being…in…in her case, that she is neither male nor female…but the fact of the matter is…what I am trying to highlight here is the level of hypocrisy that exists in the society. Persons are quick…why, why, why do you brand this group as being a satanic cult in the very first place?

Philbert John (a panelist): Could…could I ask you a question? Are you accepting the basic facts as outlined in the story? Were you able to verify?

Shefflorn Ballantyne: Well, I…I wasn’t able to verify but I am just highlighting a similarity that I see between the alleged…the alleged facts outlined here and what exists in certain religions in our society and ironically the Prime Minister himself who is a Roman Catholic, should be calling upon the society to vehemently criticize his very own religion because they bear the same…in, in, in, relation to the woman identifying herself, allegedly, as being divine, the popes have identified themselves as being god and as being divine on earth as well. The issue with our society is this, there is a…there is a new group, it is small, fairly recent, it is quickly branded as a cult. Twenty years from today, when it becomes established, it is no longer seen as a cult. It, it…ahmm, currently it bears characteristics to established religions- it is seen as a cult, the established religions is seen as established and well…well accepted. It is this sort of hypocrisy that I am highlighting. I’m no way condoning if these prac…if, if this story as outlined in the News is correct…I am no way condoning nor promoting this religion. I, I, I do not agree with it but I just want to highlight that level of hypocrisy that exists. And that’s, that’s what I want to say concerning that…so, in other words the Prime Minister should condemn the Roman Catholic Church as well.”

It is important, for context, to note that in the News newspaper of Thursday 5th April, 2012, the Prime Minister was reported thus: “Dr. Gonsalves, who is also Minister of National Security, said such groups “should be opposed, be denounced, be criticized”. To denounce the group is to ‘condemn’ and ‘attack’ it according to the online Here are the facts in summary about Ballantyne’s words above:

a.       Ballantyne lamented a level of hypocrisy in society in the way the new religious group (called satanic cult) was being branded as a cult, although its alleged religious teachings proved similar to those of the established Roman Catholic Church.

b.      He particularly compared the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the Pope (a historical and indisputable fact) with the alleged claim of the leader of the new group.

c.       Ballantyne neither called the new group a cult, nor was he interested in joining others in so doing. Instead he asked why were persons so quick to brand them as a cult.

d.      Ballantyne did not ever call the Roman Catholic Church a cult.

e.       Ballantyne particularly exposed the Prime Minister’s hypocrisy by inference to his weighing in on the topic, and indicating that to be fair, the PM should also call for criticism of the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the Pope’s divinity and should condemn it for that teaching, in the very same manner in which he called for the criticism and denunciation of the new religious group called satanic cult.

f.       Ballantyne called for fairness, intelligent approach to the view and treating of the subject and a refraining from hypocrisy in position thereon.

Despite the above facts sir, you have taken a position against the statement by Shefflorn, which you admitted in meeting today that you did not even hear yourself. Hon. Leacock has described to me Mr. Ballantyne’s words above, which he claimed to have heard, as him having “launched an attack against the Catholic Church”. Today you raised the matter in the meeting attended by at least 17 high level party members, including executive members and parliamentarians present and past, including lawyers, and a policy position was dictated to us on the matter, although most persons present had not even heard the actual statement of the young man. This does not show fairness. As a matter of fact, persons seem to have pronounced on Ballantyne’s statement, clearly not even having heard what he said. A case in point is the comment by Hon. Daniel Cummings, who at one point described Ballantyne’s statements as having called the Roman Catholic Church a cult- a thing which is NOT true. It is evident to me that, quite apart from concerns you said callers expressed to you sir, party members may have also propagated the view that Ballantyne called the Catholic Church a cult when he did not in fact do so. Furthermore, despite the fact that you sir did not hear the original statement and that you alone (apart from myself) have had the benefit of speaking to Mr. Ballantyne privately, the matter of what he said was raised today before us and judgments were cast on it without Mr. Ballantyne himself having the opportunity to be there to answer for himself. Again, that is not fair and just. I am left to conclude that false perception, and indeed propaganda, rule and dictate our party policy in this matter and not truth based on facts accordingly.

Besides, since Ballantyne basically pointed out the Prime Minister’s hypocrisy in being quick to condemn the group by calling for its denunciation, do you wish to support the Prime Minister’s position by taking a stance against Ballantyne’s wise call for fairness in dealing with our people? Furthermore, have you not seen how the very thing Ballantyne asked for carefulness with is causing people suffering? Did you not see the piece on the front page of the Friday 13th April, 2012’s News newspaper where a group is making it clear that “We are not the Satanic Cult” because they are suffering from assault against their property because some have jumped on the Prime Minister and others’ bandwagon of denouncing the so called cult? The story shows that Rev. Dr. Victoria Rothwell claims people have broken their church window and left feathers of slaughtered fowls and blood on their property. I suggest you read it.

On The Policy You Dictated Today

As I indicated today, I never knew that the New Democratic Party (NDP) had a policy which says that no candidate or potential candidate should make any public statement that is averse to any religion. I was most shocked to hear you say this sir as I considered the negative implications for religious liberty of candidates and potential candidates, even myself. In fact I indicated that such a policy would seem to disqualify even me, who was selected in November, 2011 by 100% of members present of the West St. George Constituency Council’s Executive and members. You seem not to appreciate the implications of such a policy position taken by you as president of the party, waiting to take governance. I say this because based on what you said today, you seem to think it is safe to purport that people are free to believe what they wish but public statements that are averse to religion are forbidden. You seem to think that religious liberty is limited to private belief and you seem to think that as a political leader you have authority to manage the freedom of speech of your candidates and potential candidates in the exercise of their religious Liberty. You are wrong on many fronts and I wish to point out the following to you accordingly:

1.      The Constitution of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines clearly, legally protects the fundamental rights and freedoms, including that of religious liberty, of ALL its citizens, regardless of color, race, creed and “political opinions” according to Section 1.

2.      Our Constitution also declares in the preamble that our Peoples “(b) desire that their society be so ordered as to express their recognition of the principles of democracy, free institutions, social justice and equality before the law;” (emphasis supplied). And it is upon democratic principles that our Constitution goes on to outline the fundamental rights and freedoms which it recognizes, not least of which is the protection of Freedom of Conscience.

3.      In Section 9- Protection of Freedom of Conscience-it clearly protects not only freedom to believe privately but also to EXPRESS PUBLICLY one’s religious views. It says in subsection (1): “Except with his own consent, a person shall not be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, including freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in company with others, and both in PUBLIC and in private, to MANIFEST and PROPAGATE his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” (emphasis supplied)

4.      The New Democratic Party’s constitution Article 2. Principles, says it shall be made up of “progressive-minded people of any race, color or creed who are dedicated to the principles of democracy

5.      Furthermore Article 3. Objects, declares that the party’s objects include “ (3)To guarantee the maximum expression of democratic liberties by all citizens

The policy dictated today by you sir contravenes every truth established in SVG’s Constitution regarding religious liberty, freedom of speech and expression and it even contravenes the principles and objects of the party you preside over as shown in its constitution. To dictate that candidates and potential candidates must not make public statements which are averse to any religion is in fact to limit their freedom of speech in the exercise of their religious liberty. Since we speak our thoughts, opinions and beliefs, the policy position is also in effect an effort to limit and dictate to the freedom of thoughts, opinions and beliefs of candidates and potential candidates. Moreover, since thoughts, opinions and beliefs are based on conscience, the policy seeks to dictate to the conscience- a thing only the CREATOR GOD has jurisdiction over and authority to do. Not only does this policy fail to show a guarantee of maximum expression of democratic liberties by all citizens, it is also unconstitutional in characteristic.

So tell me Mr. Eustace, how can your party, which hopes to take office to govern all of SVG under the above cited constitution of SVG, which protects Vincentians freedom to believe and express their religious teaching privately and publicly- how does your party justify taking a policy position that in effect limits its candidates and potential candidates’ freedom of speech in religious liberty? And tell me sir, how will you guarantee these freedoms with their scope constitutionally, if you take governance in SVG, when, now while in Opposition, you dare to limit the scope of your members and candidates’ legitimate freedoms?

The essential reason given for this out of place attempt to limit God-given and constitutionally protected freedoms is the claim that it will damage the party. Here, you are seriously mistaken but before I tell you why, consider this: If you seek to limit our freedom of speech now, claiming it is not politically advantageous to the party’s aim of gaining government, what will you do if  you get into office and your sole interest then is to keep government? Will not keeping government be a higher stake that attaining it? Is it not safe to infer that you will have the tendency to limit your Ministers freedoms then? How will public servants who wish to be constructively critical of your government fare, when that criticism can ‘hurt’ or ‘damage’ your government, in the same way you argue that public statements averse to religion can ‘hurt’ or ‘damage’ your party now? Do you realize the implications of what you are saying? My ultimate question is what will become of an Anesia Baptiste public servant under your government if this is your policy now in the NDP in Opposition? Have you forgot what I suffered and why? The Prime Minister was under pressure by his members to ‘deal with’ me because of my pronouncements during the referendum. He did and the rest is history.

During the referendum I stood and fought for protection of inalienable rights and freedoms which were under threat in the proposed constitution bill 2009. I fought with all my heart, convictions and voice and I did not look at consequences because I knew I stood for the truth and for righteousness- for the protection of our people’s rights and freedoms. I have suffered persecution for it and you said you stood by me. Now I am shocked to hear you espouse and dictate to the party a policy which amounts to a similar attack on constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms and which when followed to its logical conclusion can result in the same victimization and persecution of persons who may, just following their convictions, make public statements which you do not consider helpful to your political advantage.

And yet, the position you take is riddled with error in so far as political advantage is concerned. You see, to say no public statement should be made which is averse to religion is in itself a problem:

·         A statement that is averse to a religion will always be subjective. Different religions teach different things and accordingly, what one religious group considers averse to them, another group may not so consider.

·         Averse- “having an active feeling of repugnance or distaste” So for example typical Seventh-day Adventist teaching in crusades show that the office of the Pope is that of the anti-Christ. They teach this to their members along with the doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church is the one who gave the world Sunday keeping instead of Seventh day Sabbath keeping and that this change is against God and the Ten Commandments. A Roman Catholic may find this teaching averse to him. A Rastafarian on the other hand will not find it averse to him to teach that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

·         So, essentially, any action you take on your policy would result in you taking sides with religious doctrine. That will hurt the party, not help it. It would make the party’s policy position based on the protection of religious doctrine. This makes no sense because your duty as a political leader is to protect people’s rights from infringement, not to protect religious teachings from being criticized publicly (one cannot protect a doctrine anyway). Besides, who will you protect the most? Catholics, Seventh day Adventists? Rastafarians? Who? You will run the risk of offending one or more by standing for one or the other. This will hurt you.

·         Political policy is supposed to protect the rights and freedoms of all to hold and manifest and propagate their religion according to the dictates of their consciences. To stand for the rights of all is helpful to the party. On the contrary, to give in to pressure from special interest groups over offense taken at public expression of religious opinion is unwise, immature and shows poor leadership. This will truly hurt the party.

·         An Opposition party like ours is best positioned to understand the need to protect the rights and freedoms of those in minority groups from the bullying and stifling attempts of those who consider themselves majority and popular. Therefore, it should be careful not to limit freedoms of minorities but to facilitate their free and full exercise legitimately, least it appear to take on the same character that its opponents-the government-possesses. For that, will truly hurt this Opposition party.

In this regard sir, you would do well to consider the example of the political figure called the Deputy of Achaia in the book of the Acts of the Apostles chapter 18, verses 12 -16  in the Holy Bible (King James Version):

 “12And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,

13Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.

 14And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:

 15But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.

 16And he drave them from the judgment seat.”

Note the wisdom of Gallio- Deputy of Achaia who reasoned that when it came to religious opinions and differences, he could not judge in such matters to take a side (neither the Jews’ nor Paul’s) but that he would limit his jurisdiction to matters of crime and evil, immoral behavior. He diffused the situation by the policy position he took and did not consider that this position was politically disadvantageous to him but simply stood for the religious liberty for all. Paul was free to teach his opinions and so were the Jews to oppose him. However, to bring Paul before the politicians for judgment, the politician refused to judge in such a matter. This is wisdom, Mr. Eustace and you would be better off following Deputy Gallio’s example. Unlike him, it is reported in other chapters of the Acts of the Apostles that Jewish leaders who listened to the crowd’s accusations against the Apostles without a hearing, caused great persecution of these innocent Christians, who were beaten, arrested and even imprisoned when the intolerance for their seemingly unpopular teaching, was taken to its fullness. Peruse the book of Acts and you will see the accounts. Like Deputy Gallio, you should encourage those who whisper misrepresentations of Ballantyne’s words in your ears, to be mature and to leave the issue alone because it is not truly a political one. Tell them to maturely debate Ballantyne or anyone for that matter if they want but that you will not judge in such matters because you are not infallible and you cannot dictate to a person’s conscience what opinions they hold and express religiously.

Please let it not be that you my dear sir and others in the upper party are the ones making this a political issue in the Country, and not the government. It would be wise for you not to attack or to break those who are helping you fight the government like Ballantyne’s words were doing. Remember, Ballantyne was not attacking any religion, neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the new religion the Prime Minister was attacking. The point of his words was to show the irrational attack of the PM and others, which have incited people to transgress the rights of a religious group. And dear sir, all this is not just talk. This is political sincerity.

Mr. Eustace, I have to ask you- what about all the critical comments which have been made by our members, including candidates and representatives, against the hypocrisy of the Christian Council? What about our condemnation of compromising positions of people like Reverend Job and others? Will such commentary be outlawed now by this policy of yours, sir?  I am sure there would have been religious persons who were offended at the party’s criticisms. Where was the policy against such then? Why is Shefflorn Ballantyne singled out now for being intelligently critical of an issue of comparative religious teachings (facts and alleged)? The way this matter is being handled makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It reeks of discrimination based on a level of bias against Ballantyne. Could it be that leadership prefers Lauren Baptiste for North Windward and is perhaps looking for fault in Shefflorn Ballantyne to use against him? Your policy promised taking action if necessary. What kind of action will you dare take, sir, against a man’s God-given and constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty? Will you act against his desires to serve at a higher level just because you don’t like his expressed opinion on religious matters?

Do we not have more serious issues to be making policies on in meetings? Is not the ULP doing  much in this Country to destroy people’s lives? Should we not be focusing all our energies on addressing them, rather than trying to limit the freedom of speech of morally upright and hard working members of our party such as Ballantyne, who did no wrong, neither called the Roman Catholic church a cult- which you have seen in his statements transcribed in this letter? This position you took today is a backward and debilitating one for the NDP and I am obliged in my conscience to tell you so without water in my mouth.

Today, when I indicated my concern that matters of complaint about candidates’ public behavior do not seem to make it to these meetings for confrontation but that this particular matter of Ballantyne’s statement interestingly came before the meeting, resulting in the dictating of a strict, anti-rights policy position, nobody responded. I was particularly referring to calls I have received complaining about Hon. Leacock’s behavior in public with a woman who is not his wife and also the complaints against Lauren Baptiste’s (potential NW candidate) public behavior regarding his female partner. I believe you have received these complaints also. There are other complains too, such as about upset and confusion in East St. George between and among former council member, the current candidate and supporters. Has any investigation been done into these things? Or is there no need for any? Will there be policy positions dictated on these issues also? Will they be brought into similar meeting like today, in each person’s absence, like what was done today also? Or do they not hurt the party? How far are you prepared to go, sir? These things warrant attention. Is there unfair discrimination when it comes to Ballantyne?  Why single out his innocent statement for address? Is there hypocrisy? It seems it would be better if Ballantyne had stoned a church like another candidate and nothing would be done about it.

My Position:

I have heard and read the statement made by Shefflorn Ballantyne and I do not agree with you that such public expression of religious opinion which some may find offensive should be limited.

I do not at all agree with the policy position you dictated today.

I do not at all support the policy position you dictated today.

I will not follow or obey it because it is against my conscience which God alone can dictate to. And you, Mr. Eustace, are not and will not be allowed to play God to me.

I will not follow or obey it also because it is against my God-given religious liberty right exercised in my freedom of opinion and speech.

I will not follow or obey it because it is an attempt to limit my free (legitimate) speech.

The policy position you dictated is also against the highest law of the land-the Constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and not in harmony with the spirit of the principles and objects of the constitution of the NDP. I will not follow such an unconstitutional policy.

And for it to have come from you-the leader of the Opposition and President of the NDP who aspires to becoming the Prime Minister of SVG, is disappointing, unacceptable and leaves much to be desired. I fear that if you are taking such a position now in Opposition you will be a danger to Vincentians’ rights and freedoms as leader of government. It is in fact the policy position that you dictated today that will hurt the party’s position of getting into office. And if the NDP really holds policies like this it will do no differently from the ULP in persecuting persons for their rights and freedoms.

As for me, I, Anesia Baptiste am a democrat. I will stand as I have always stood-for the protection of the inalienable and constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of all people, including and especially minorities. For this is the true test of the character of policy makers and governments. This is the real yard stick by which governments are to be judged- how they treat the God-given rights and freedoms of the people. I will not be the hypocrite, not then, not now and not ever. This is who I am, this is what I stand by, based on the word of God. Like the 16th Century Great German Reformer Martin Luther I say To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other.  So help me God.”

MY dear sir, with all due respect to you, when I joined the NDP, it was because I believed that the party had respect for rights and freedoms of all Vincentians, those in the party and those in government, unlike the tyranny of the ULP. I placed a lot of trust in the ideals of this party and hoped that through its policies we will see a new politics, a new beginning, a golden age for St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Please do not hurt me so much by disappointing me. Please do not make me feel that I have misjudged this party.


Sincerely Yours

Anesia Baptiste……

Anesia Baptiste

Strategy Committee Present on 17th April, 2012

 Hon. Godwin Friday

Hon St. Clair Leacock

Hon. Daniel Cummings

Hon. Roland Mathews

Hon. Nigel Stephenson

Hon. Vynnette Frederick

Dr. Linton Lewis

Mr. Allan Cruickshank

Mrs. Doris McIntosh

Mr. Norell Hull

Mr. Addison Thomas

Mr. Kenroy Johnson

Mr. Marcus Defreitas

Mr. Burton Williams

Mr. Alfred Bynoe

34 thoughts on “Read Anesia’s 11 Page Letter to Arnhim Eustace

  1. I believe that there is leadership in every organization and I believe if you chose to be part of the organization go with your gospel and be an Evangelist it like the american tea partyam an advocate for women I believe women has the right t o speak but when you in an organization there is a how when and where a thing to be done she might have step over the line let give her a chance she is young and you need to give her a second chance

  2. Stating that “the Roman Catholic church’s doctrines are similar to that of a cult” in my mind, is implying that it is a cult. It’s like saying a Becquia plum has similar features of a yellow plum. Guys come on people are not that stupid. As an a Seventh-Day Adventist I am aware of that view about the Roman Catholic church, so please just be man and wowan enough to own what Shefflon said. I guess Anesia did not expect him to plublicly state it and that is why she probably was so passionate about the urgent need for damage control.

    1. Anesia, Yes you have a right to your religious views and yes you have a right to criticise another religion. But Oh Lord if you are going to represent a community where you have people of all faiths what is so wrong in your boss asking you not to go in public and cuss out any religion? How can some people be so damn stupid. There is much wisdom in not saging anything adverse to any religious group in publlic. No body is stopping you from practicing your religious belief. Just be careful what you say..That I think is the essense of what Mr Eustace wanted but the Miss-know-it all had to proof how foolish she is and talked her way of of a job…….

  3. Yes freedom to practise one’s religion but not to publicly criticize and ostracize religion. There is responsibility attached to freedom of expression too.

  4. If this is the original transcript of Ballantyne’s comments, then he did not call the R C church a cult. However, what is disturbing is that Anesia took it upon herself, after discussions with the NDP strategy Committee, to send them a letter ideally saying that she no longer can be a member of the party based on the policy of the party. Why then is she carrying on as if Mr. Eustace did such a great injustice in firing her? If she held such strong positions about her religious beliefs sooner or later she herself would have opted out of the party. This wasn’t even about her in the first place. It appears as though she had some axe to grind and she could not wait any longer.

  5. So manyelves of the comments show much ignorance in the scriptures.After reading the letter very carefully , nothing she said is rude and out of order .All she said is that no one is to call themselves God on earth ,the so call cult or the catholic church, none is exempted, and that is sound scripture. Anyone can search and find that for themselves

  6. All this drama for what mr ballantyne said… not anesia.. yet because they are in the same religion she is getting so much heat for all of this…. her letter was very disrespectful and for an educated woman she should have better since when she put pen to paper…. I guess her common sense went out the window when it comes to her religion…. respect should always be given no matter who it is.

    1. i dont think she is disrespectful. she stood up proud and strong for what she believe in. i do not find the words of mr ballantyne to be condemming or insultive at all . I can see that our vincentian public is nor comprehensive literate. even the so called learned missed the point by a whole league

  7. I think people of African descent are to obsess with this Christianity and the Bible. This religion was used to enslave and colonize us yet we would not make an effort to liberate our minds from this bondage.

    There are numerous religions and holy scriptures around the world with the same concepts as Christianity. In fact many of these religions and religious texts predate Christianity.

    Christianity is one of the tools used to keep black people in bondage and promote white supremacy. Jesus is white > Jesus is the son of god > so god is white >….

    We are all divine beings – that is ancient African philosophy – and the sooner we come to terms with that realization the sooner we are able to truly communicate with our creator. Meditation, fasting, proper diet, yoga… are means by which we are able to cultivate our spirituality. This is ancient philosophy. The philosphy of ancient Africa.

    The white supremist through their Christianity would have you believe that these things are pagan and cultish and what’s worse people of African descent buy into this and denegrate the wisdom of their ancestors.

    I think the sista’s position was quite principled. I think she has leadership qualities. Who is there to replace the current leader. We need leaders with a comprehensive overstanding of world politics, regional politics and SVG’s place in the scheme of things. Leaders to enlighten the people not to deceive them to get votes.

    Not leaders to misrepresent. How could one condone that the descendants of the family of the people who captured your ancestors, transported them across the Atlantic like cargo and enslaved them for hundreds of years are fit to be your Queen/King. They compensated the people who enslaved us. What did they give us – Christianity.

    Maybe that’s why we treasure it so much……

    1. shut up about white supremacy and enslavement. your own black brothers sold even your grandmothers for a broken piece of glass. thats how black people are. then you cry out for enslavement

  8. Free speech, power, religion, politics, pride, personal feelings hurt, questionable professionalism, leadership or lack of leadership, a sinking ship, God, humans, the devil in the mix? Help me understand what this is all about. Much time spent about nothing, is there a right or wrong in all this? NDP your are in the opposition, pay attention to what is important if you want to unseat ULP. ULP do what is best for all if you don’t want to be unseated. You both have a valuable role to play in SVG, ‘Just Do It.’

  9. Some of us who took sides on this issue need to take a step back put policitcs aside and picture yourself in the shoes of both persons and tell what you would have done as a “SANE” individual. There is a time to go on the offence and a time to play defense. Let me try to put everything in a timeline and see if we can make some sense out of this:

    1. Anesia was kicked out of the ULP for being un-ruly and have no respect for higher authority.

    2. She left the SDA because she didnt agree with their teachings and formed her own church.

    3. During the referendum, she went against the rules governing the public servants and was suspended. She then resigned.

    So far we have observed that she has an issue with authority.

    4. She was embrassed by the NDP and played a vital role in the vote no campaign and then political campaign of the NDP to seek office. She was then made a senator.

    5. At the party convention she went against the wishes of the party leader and prevent Stone church from becoming the chairman of the party. Apparently Arnhim want nuttin to do with Dr. Lewis.

    6. One by one she started moving her fellow thusian members into the NDP enter Shefflon Ballentyne.

    7. Shefflon made his comments based ona personal opinion but is perspective candidate for the NDP. Party members had an issue with and seek to address the issue by stating that it should be coming practice for candidates and perspective candidtates to blah blah blah.

    8. Anesia decided that she do not agree with the leadership and decided to rant and rave in 10 page 5000 plus word letter basically washing out all the aprty dirty laundry in the street.

    Question – if your were the political leader of this party, what would you do?

  10. Anesia would have forever languished in the land of oblivion if Ralph had not attacked her leading up to the referendum then NDP in a desperate fit of opportunism took her in knowing that she was a loose cannon and religious zealot; making her executive member and senator,,but this whole chain of events was started by Ralph knocking the new religion to score with the established religions, therefore trampling on religious freedom…Ballantyne did nothing wrong; he merely made a parallel and condemned Ralph for his religious bias and opportunism…I find Anesia’s letter to be clear thoughtful and principled and in no way out of line..what happened to Anesia was a perfect gang-bang they realized their mistake in bringing her in and making her senator in the heat of election passion so the used this smokescreen to get rid of her. There is nothing democratic about the process it just show their inability to self analyze and deal with the truth. Anesia has the strength to stand out unlike those cowards in NDP who can only find strength in numbers, 16 to1, It may be prudent to get rid of her now but it was done in an unprincipled and dastard fashion; she may be an extremist and religious fanatic but at least she is consistent and stands for something which I cannot say for some of the others in the party. The same way I believe that I have the right to be an atheist I believe that others have their rights to their gods and religions whether cult, established or devil worship for that matter. Our constitution clearly stipulates the separation of church and state but our politicians are too insecure and power hungry to even consider thinking along along that line. The firing of Anesia may be good for the party in the long run if Eustace is prepared to do some further house cleaning, however he may have just played into Ralph Gonsalves hand….

  11. Aneisa, pray to the one true God who created the heavens and earth and ask him to give you humbleness of heart, wisdom and understanding as these characteristics will serve you well in this world.

    One of the great characteristics of Jesus Christ was humility. Jesus was God manifested in flesh full of power could have called ten thousand angels but he didn’t. He allowed them to spot upon him, to pierce his side and yet he had the power to speak a word and they all would have been destroyed.

    With power one must demonstrate humbleness. Matthew 20 vs 26-27: But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
    And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

    Let these words be your guide and seek the wisdom of God and not the wisdom of men.

  12. i just read Anesia Baptiste’s letter to Arnhim Eustace, and i disagree with Vincy Kallaloo on their biased position that “…Based on the contents of that letter, Eustace should have kicked her ass out immediately!…”. Au contraire, she should be commended for taking a stance, in the face of so much adversity. i’m curious to know how an alleged statement made by someone other than Anesia Baptiste, could lead to her dismissal? how is it “Democracy”, when one’s personal, political, spiritual, creative or any thought expressed is not protected as outlined in the constitution of SVG? based on the contents of this letter, it would seem that the leader of the NDP is in fact practicing some of the same “bully” behavior they he has accused the ULP leader of doing in the past. firing Anesia Baptiste will = political suicide for the NDP. i know all the haters will probably jump on my back for supporting the Sister in her stance, but all i got to say to that is, Rasta don’t come to fight flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness in high and low places. the dismissal of Senator Baptiste is UNJUST!!!

      1. i don’t have to be a “fellow Thusian” to defend one. its an issue of one’s freedom to express their views whether you agree with them or not. the only pretender here would be you, cause i don’t try to hide my identity, WTF IS “BunFinga”. stop hiding behind these pseudonyms. come out of the closet!!!!!

    1. rasta is also a satanic cult. they worship a vagabond like selassie. remember the bible is not written about selassie. he dead he rotten he thief and oppress the people. he kill and murder so don’t talk rassta

    1. i think right now that i am changing from supporting the ndp. i can see arnhim level of arroganance and stupidity


    I think Eustace could have handled the situation differently; Eustace needed to sleep on this over the weekend and then make a cool and calculated decision. I am now forced to contradict my previous position of Eustace not making hasty and irrational decisions, this was if not irrational but clearly a hasty decision. The tone of the letter was simply petulant and it would have taken a personality the caliber of Obama to handle this situation in a manner that everyone saves face. I believe Anesia never really got “handled” by a grown man…and handled not in a physical way, but in a way a father would sit his rude-arse daughter down and read the riot act to her. Anesia is still an immature lady, and I thought Eustace was the ideal mentor for her, clearly I was mistaken.

    As for the actual contents of the letter, I REALLY DO NOT SEE WHAT WAS WRONG IN WHAT SHEFFLON BALLANTYNE SAID ON THE RADIO. And I agree with Anesia that there are more pressing matters for the NDP to be pursuing than this nonsense. What is more problematic for the NDP is the revelation that Leaccok is apparently “bouting” his wife and another member misbehaving in public with his female companion. This is not the sort of news the NDP want in the media for public consumption; this is a public relations nightmare and the image of the NDP is in tatters at the moment. The decision of Eustace to prolong this issue on Monday is now looking a monumental phuck-up and hopefully he addresses everything concerning this issue and put it to rest as soon as possible.

    1. Sorry but Mr Ballantyne needs to be careful of what seeps out of his mouth, HE IS REPRESENTING A PARTY. He can say what ever he wants behind the doors of the Thusian Church but when he’s on radio representing a political party he needs to watch his damn mouth and stop acting like an arrogant retard. But let me say this I am sure arrogance is something shared widely amongst members of the Thusian Institute of Frivolous Liberties. I promise you if this cult ever gets the power it wants there will only be dark days ahead for this already damaged Island.

      1. All the NDP had to do was to issue a statement RENOUNCING THE COMMENTS OF BALLANTYNE. And behind closed doors tell Mr Ballantyne to make a public apology for said comments or he CANNOT BE A MEMBER OF THE NDP.

        Likewise, call in Ms Baptiste read the riot act to her and give her ANOTHER CHANCE TO STEP BACK FROM HER POSITION. Look, I maybe wrong, but I have a feeling if Mr Eustace had threatened Anesia with the dismissal of her senatorial position; she would have backed down…I do not believe the thought of losing her Senatorial seat ever crossed her mind, so deluded she was in her own arrogance. I think if this situation was given the weekend to simmer and for folks to come down from their respective pedestal; I do not believe the NDP would be in this BACCHANAL. Eustace called the Governor General in a matter of hrs upon receiving Anesia’s email…maybe it just my way of thinking and personality, but I would not have reacted in this rather hasty manner. I would have exhausted all avenues first before I pulled the trigger. I want to say this, I do belive there are some folks in the NDP that WANTED TO GET RID OF ANESIA..AND THIS WAS THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO..

        I think Anesia talent deserves a SECOND CHANCE! Yes the tone of the letter could be deemed disrespectful; I would say petulant, same difference right? Lol…[IMMATURITY IS ANESIA’S BIGGEST ISSUE] but given the dearth of quality candidates out there unwilling to step up the plate…I am saying, that Anesia deserves a CHANCE TO GET HER ACT TOGETHER.

        Again I may be totally wrong on this…but I believe with time spent in the senate, she would have come around to the idea that her religious affiliation and dogma is an obstacle to her upward mobility in the political environment. And given her ambition to be PM, given a SECOND CHANCE, I THINK SHE WOULD HAVE GRABBED IT WITH BOTH HANDS.


    1. Amnesia is no different from Ralph, Arnhim, Leacock, Francis etc etc. Infact she is worse because she uses GOD’S NAME for HER OWN benefit. Watch this woman carefully she is very dangerous, I sincerely feel sorry for members of her cult.

      1. Everyone of them use God’s name when it suit them. Right now, I sorry for St. Vincent for the state dem man have the country in.
        Mrs Baptiste is just under attack because she dares, being a mere young woman, to resist all what them man want her to go along with! Bravo, Mrs Baptiste, hold your ground!

  14. My God, This letter was outrageously disrespectful. The tone used was as if she was speaking to a little boy. Fartnim had every right to throw this demonic woman out of her party.

  15. I have to laugh…why the phuck did Eustace make this an issue in the first place…I see nothing wrong with what Mr Ballantyne said in all honesty. THIS IS A LOAD OF CRAP. I will not have fired Anesia for this crap…I would have demanded an apology and THEN IF SHE REFUSED..THEN FIRE HER ARSE BEHIND CLOSE DOORS!!!!…Again, this is crap and not worthy of the blows that the NDP image will be have to endure in the coming days. My faith in Anesia has been restored.But clearly it was a dumbarse move to challenge Mr Eustace leadership in this brazen manner. ,

  16. Arnhim Eustace needs to step away from the NDP. He is really why NDP will never win an election in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. He is useless.

  17. Man made religion creates confusion…..There should be separation of Church and state….Religion don’t mix well with politics….There is a thin line between the two….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s