Mod- Thread title updated to reflect what has actually happened, and the op's text link has been turned into a working link
Lazy effort op, don't do it again
Threadbanned
john123470
Ah come on now you are trying to defend and excuse his indefensible behaviour!
Irish correspondent on GB News.
Remember, he has been jailed for contempt of court.
He has not been jailed for whatever argument he has.
Similarly when people claimed that they were jailed for not paying a tv license - it was the refusal to pay a court directed fine that got them time in jail.
No doubt he/it will find something to argue about in mount joy
There is a school in Castlebar who will take him. 😉
A theological position will need theological justification including scriptural support. I have no doubt it could be attempted. I have no doubt it could be refuted.
To take your argument: the school has asserted that it must accept the wishes of the transitioning student under Equality legislation. The school has offered no argument based on its ethos afaik beyond “inclusivity”. That is not a theological argument. It does not bind the CoI. However, as a CoI school it has accepted without theological explanation the primacy of state law over anything else in its school. That is very much in keeping with the Anglican tradition, founded you will remember simply to satisfy the needs of Henry the 8th to get rid of a wife. Or two. Or three. It has always been amenable to state direction. But if it has no religious substance to it how can it claim to continue as a patron?
There are huge issues coming into view about the profound fictions that organise this state. Patronage. Religious patronage. The teaching of RE claiming it to be just a subject but yet it meets the catechetical needs of churches. What is religious ethos and if it is trumped by state law why should there even be religious schools? Why should the state pay the wages of staff employed in such schools?
There are many people in politics, the churches, the civil service relieved that Mr Burke is in trouble over the matters in the injunction. And nothing else. That alone should give any progressive pause for thought.
I know nothing of him except what I read. Maybe he is everything depicted here and on Twitter. But I think he is also a naive, deeply religious and principled young man sadly in the grip of a ridiculous faith who might just stay the course.
And every comment on this issue must face the shocking situation that a vulnerable student has been put into by Mr Burke’s actions.
It’s a human tragedy and it needs the most careful and deft of interventions.
He did it in front of the school, including potentially the affected student. That shows a complete disregard for their well being and since it was such a sensitive issue, he was suspended with pretty good cause. You're downplaying it.
Why are you so caught up with the CoI diocese thing? It's fairly irrelevant. Just like almost all RC schools will have a BoM or Governors, with a place reserved for the local priest or bishop, so too will a CoI school. The CoI in most cases is very hands off, as are most RC bishops and priests - the exception being where some RC schools will let in pro-life/pro-abstinence groups to give talks to transition year or older students. That happens less and less now because most students go "WTF?!" and go to the media when the weirdo groups start trying to bind students together...
Ultimately this all comes down to the following:
Burke harassed his boss at a public event to do with his job. He then refused to obey a paid suspension by continuing to show up at work. He then ignored a High Court injunction preventing him from attending his workplace while suspended. Then when arrested and brought before the High Court, he told the judge he would continue to disobey the injunction. That's why he's in prison. The CoI don't care, and nor should they.
He probably be in safe wing like remand rather than public.
Don't think he will meet Scot Capper and the lads.
If this gains international media traction, I reckon none of the family will need to worry about working again.
There's enough Bible-Belt dollars waiting for causes like this.
Even more interesting as in German, the feminine and plural pronouns (such as she and they) are often the same! An accommodating person might easily have met the request through means of mental reservation (a Jesuitical rather than evangelical method admittedly) without upsetting the pupil.
Leaving aside the wider behavioural circumstances of this case for a minute, to what degree do “religious beliefs” have any legal standing, in ANY situation?
And what is the legal definition of religious beliefs? I’m assuming it’s something that is held as true by a great many members of a recognised religion?
His approach is all very philosophical but it reminds me of the “gay cake” debacle -however the big difference here, is that we’re talking about another human being, not a commercial transaction.
Children have rights. The school has policies and procedures. There are laws on discrimination harassment and hate crimes. I’m not sure he has much chance of success but id love to hear the legal arguements on both sides nevertheless
There was a kid in my class called Leslie. He hated the name. From his first day in secondary school he asked that everyone called him by his second name. Everyone did. All the teachers, every single person in the school.
Apparently, according to some, that's wrong now and the teachers should have refused that. they should have bullied him until he accepted that they were right and that he couldn't change his name.
I think this case is a little more nuanced than wanting to be called a different first name. I had classmates who were called by their nickname, even by teachers, but that is not the same as wanting to be identified as a different gender.
I think they're fools. They grew up in a cult. It's an isolated religious group. They were all indoctrinated by their parents. You can see it in their behavior. That's a massive blind spot in their logic/thinking.
They asked to be called by a different name. The reason behind it is different, but essentially it's the same thing. Everyone was ok with this, except for burke. He decided that his feelings were more important than the child.
In Ireland your legal name is any name you are known by. It was quite common for people to be known by their second name; especially where there might be more than one person of that name in the larger family. i.e if the father was John and the son was John Michael, the son might just grow up being Michael
There are a lot of legal factors such as employment law employers policies and procedures etc let alone the behavioural aspects of the individual that will probably prevent us ever seeing a definitive legal ruling on this from a transgender and religion perspective but I’d still like to know the following:
Has a private person broken a “law”, and if so what law, if they refuse to call another private person, in a public non work setting, by their preferred name and gender pro-noun.
We have seen in the UK I think, people spoken to by police as a result of their Twitter contributions where they deliberately don’t recognise another persons gender- I believe that they were spoken to on the basis of a “hate crime” .
In reality, if you meet someone who is transgender and refuse to acknowledge this, then simply that person won’t interact with you - end of story.
But using the written word, such as social media, you’ve now firmly placed evidence of your possible “hate crime” or “harassment crime” or whatever the official law is, online. Now a person could make a criminal complaint against you under whatever is the legislation.
So the question then will be, if you don’t believe in transgender due to your religious beliefs, are you protected under law and if so, how?
I don’t imagine you are, if it can be proven that you engaged with a person for the purposes of harassing them or hate motivated behaviour - whilst you can hold such beliefs, it’s when you act on these beliefs - ie refuse to acknowledge someone’s stated gender in a work or school setting, that can land you in difficulty.
It really isn’t the same thing as just wanting to be known by a different name.
That’s pandering. Inch by inch they have gotten this far. This person is calling me by the pronouns I want, let’s see if anyone says anything when I use the womens toilet, let’s see if I can get away with using the female changing rooms in the clothes shop, let’s see if I can go into the womens locker room at the swimming pool. And so on…….
Pandering has us where we are today, where elderly women are thrown out of swimming pools for objecting to a biological male in the locker room staring at young girls using the loo.
“My experience while showering after my swim was hearing a man’s voice in the women’s dressing area and seeing a man in a women’s swimsuit watching little girls pull down their bathing suits in order to use the toilets in the dressing room,” said Ms. Jaman at the Aug. 1 city council meeting.”
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/17/80-year-old-swimmer-objects-transgender-staffer-ym/
If we are using recent assaults in Dublin as a metric then heterophobia is through the bloody roof.
How many heterosexuals were attacked because of their sexuality?
The big question in this case could come down to have they. It is just a question of filling in a form in front of a solicitor and sending it into the govt. Have the parents actually changed the kids gender? Or were they just going along with calling them by their preference? If they hadn’t bothered to change it legally, was Burke actually misgendering??
The big question in this case could come down to have they
What case?
Given his actions, I imagine he will be fired. Then he will take a case to WRC. Where Mummy will probably get the case thrown out.
As for continuing trespass, that has been dealt with.
The only big question really is how long can the fúckwit hold out in the Joy before he comes crawling out to purge his contempt.
It’s a scummy thing to do to go public with this when it should have been dealt with behind closed doors- it’s a child ffs.
Whilst this may have been an employment lawyers nightmare to sort out, had he not engaged in the behaviour alleged, then “allowances” may well have been made for him ie not to teach that class etc - or indeed, an insistence that he teach that class and address the pupil according to their wishes - he’s made an ass of the situation
...
The Act applies to filling in Government documents, not to informing schools of the transition. I referred to the Act in response to a poster asking if a Court can decide on the gender of a person.
Incoming Patreon grift for him....
You think the scum in Dublin have the brainpower to care about someone sexuality?? It’s just an excuse to attack, like someone having a bright jacket, not having a smoke, looking at someone. The feral teens don’t care if your gay, straight, black, white, Catholic, Muslim. So using them to “prove” homophobia is disingenuous.
You don’t have to have brain power to target someone because they are gay, in fact, it is probably a good indicator of the absence of intelligence.
Here’s the thing with your earlier post, homophobic assaults occur when the person is attacked as a result of being homosexual/their sexuality.
Heterophobic assaults would indicate they were assaulted as a result of being heterosexual/their sexuality.
You seem to be saying that attacks on non-gay people are classed as heterophobic attacks, they are “through the bloody roof”.
Seems a bit disproportionate putting someone in jail who doesn’t agree with all this transgender stuff when their are burglars and all sorts of scum walking the streets after getting suspended sentences
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6cf5dc758823be7b2ebdb601ec3d15b8.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c33618a99b1d02afaf5370e8c02bf147.svg)
