HOW PETE JENNINGS REFUSED THE CHANCE TO DEFEND HIS ACTIONS AGAINST HIS OWN MEMBERS
Following the Pagan Federation's disgraceful expulsion of their own loyal PF Northwest committee members, Pat and Cath Regan the story hit the pagan headlines.
Pat and Cath had merely reported that PF interfaith liaison with Christian Fundamentalist groups was fraught with numerous provable dangers. Pete Jennings, the PF's dictatorial president and Christo/pagan interfaith instigator, had booted the Regans out of their 'own' Federation without rhyme, reason or fair right to reply to a devious complaint from some unknown person.
The story was reported in several pagan publications including the now defunct Pagan Central International magazine. The Regans gave their evidence against the unwarranted and totalitarian PF action and Pete Jennings was also given a fair chance to explain his action.
Did Jennings take the opportunity to explain his mandate to the rest of the pagan community? No - he refused point blank with the following 'educated' statement via telephone to the magazine's editor:
" Hello Rainbow (editor of PCI magazine) this is Pete Jennings from the Pagan Fed, thanks for the call and invitation to respond to responding to PAN, but no thanks, I 'v said me bit and if they want to rant on and on I'm not going to make a game of it. But thanks for giving us the opportunity anyway. Cheers then bye"
Incidentally, PAN has also accessed a copy of the actual tape recording of this PCI transcript with the words issued by Jennings as foul testimony to his unbelievable intransigence against fellow pagans.
Please click on the link below to view a copy of the article.
'This then was the self-righteous attitude of the PF's leader after he had taken odious actions that defy logic and stand as a monument of intolerance in pagan circles against free-speech and fair debate. He couldn't defend his actions then in 1998 as he and his predecessors still cannot today.
The PF have censored the work and expertise of the SAFF and PAN for years. However, this was not always the case as before Jennings' coterie moved in the PF had an excellent working relationship with PAN and SAFF .
Below we have displayed some comments which fully support the old relationship from another ex-PF president. What a pity that PF archbishops' stupidity destroyed this vital association, which benefited pagans everywhere!
These words that were written in
August, 1991 by 'Elen Williams', ex-PF President in a letter which actually
defended SAFF's hard-line stance against naive critics.
"Thank
you for your kind words about the Pagan Federation's anti-defamation work.
However, I have to point out that we have a very close working relationship with
SAFF and that any pagan contacting us about a child custody problem or abuse
allegations would be recommended to contact SAFF without delay."
Elen continued:
"SAFF has
the legal resources and confrontational skills that are an essential ingredient
in dealing with these situations."
"Some find SAFF's combative style objectionable (most pagans are very non
combative); but it is a powerful weapon when turned on fundamentalists or ritual
abuse obsessed social workers. The fundie campaign is well financed and
insidious : SAFF has been very effective in exposing their machinations and in
carrying the war into the enemy's camp".
Elen also mentioned in this letter that there was then a:
"Division of labour"
between SAFF and the PF which
"Makes sense in terms of economy of effort and money."
The PF were the soft-option approach whilst SAFF were the harder option. She
clearly stated that it was much "braver"
to have to be the 'hard-option' function.
This glowing SAFF referral from the head of the PF shows what a terribly dangerous state paganism is now in when we consider that the PF disgracefully broke off this very excellent and essential working relationship with the coming of the more modern PF dictatorship that acted against its own loyal members without proper mandate or fair reason.
Are PF members getting the best representation they fully deserve from their leaders? You tell us!
Disclaimer:
PAN realises that the vast majority of Christians are not fundamentalist or evangelical in make up and we only criticise religious extremists who seek to disenfranchise other faiths whilst bolstering their own. PAN does not in any way condone violence against any persons or property and we must state that we have always worked towards a more tolerant and equal society.
