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
"Mr Justice Max Barratt said he accepted the case was not about the issue of transgenderism and was simply an application for a further injunction which he granted."
QED
Exactly what I said.
Doesn't answer my question: the ethos is what it is.
Question was: why did he take a job when he didn't agree with it?
Or, quite simply, you know Burke hasn't a leg to stand on and are waffling.
Sweet dreams. 🛌💤
Maybe your interpretation of it if you have read it and understand the language and background of it is different from his understanding of it as a man raised in evangelical Protestantism? Would that be a possibility do you think? “It is what it is”. I’m usually nicer but I can’t help laughing.
Except the implication by the poster was that the ethos of the COI would define the approach of the school to transgender students and the approach to any subjects that clash with a religious viewpoint. It wouldn't simply be dictated by a teacher's beliefs.
And let's repeat, all Enoch was required to do was use a gender neutral pronoun and refer to the student by the name they use. He didn't have to explicitly acknowledge a specific gender based pronoun. If anything, that arrangement also respects his viewpoint. Instead he close to both disrespect both staff and students with his outburst. His conduct throughout has basically guaranteed he's unlikely to get another teaching job.
Arrogantly dishing out insults does not nake you look smart. The ethos is not the issue. Burke is. He took the job.
So for the third tine, why did Burke take a job when he disagreed with the ethos?
Read previous reply.
Here's how this plays out.
You left out a part, one of the others will inevitably take up the mantle with a fresh employment dispute. If they, it'll relate to trans people cause they get traction among certain audiences...
Don't forget, the Teaching Council will likely bring him up for a hearing also and will likely result in him losing his license to teach
Pretty spot on Quin. Disciplinary process might be done while he’s in jail if his attendance could be arranged. Could be difficult. He could find a niche in the US.
And you can read mine:
See as you're unable to answer civilly and want to go round in circles, you go on you're own. My point is proven, we're done here.
His "religious freedom" argument became moot when he took the job.
Think about the previous answer?
Not being a lawyer I am not sure what happens if a particularly zealous person (eg somebody from Castlebar called Burke) doggedly refuses to "purge their contempt" and just digs their heels in by staying in prison indefinitely, no doubt finding solace in the Bible story about Daniel and the Lion's Den.
At what point can a judge simply switch the terms of incarceration from "stay on the naughty step until you're ready to say sorry" to a fixed-term "go to your room for the next whatever days/weeks/months"?
I can readily see Mr Burke being truculent about this and sweating out his indefinite time, no doubt buttressed by regular noisy demonstrations from his siblings. At what point does the general public get concerned and say "Come on. You can't keep him in jail forever!" and the tide start to turn in his favour?
Just a thought: Has Louis Theroux ever done a program about these bozos? They sound like just his sort of raw materiel
I don't think it ever turns, to be honest. At some point, this ceases to be news and is forgotten about.
Previously on the thread there was mention of the Rossport Five who never purged their contempt. Shell abandoned the injunction. The legal bet might be the school will go for dismissal, abandon the first injunction and get another if/when he turns up or pickets.
Posters need to realise that it is profoundly in the interests of denominational education and maintaining religious control and influence to stop Mr Burke getting a hearing on religious ethos grounds. And they likely will.
Posters need to realise that it is profoundly in the interests of denominational education and maintaining religious control and influence to stop Mr Burke getting a hearing on religious ethos grounds.
What are you on about, seriously. Literally nobody will stop him saying whatever he wants at any hearing he attends so if he wishes to spout on for an hour or two about his particular brand of faith he can. Just any religious aspect won't be considered as it has no bearing on the issues at hand (harassment, bullying, contravening an injunction).
Precisely. As long as the issues remain, as they must remain, limited to that he can get nowhere. If he could get his beliefs into a forum where a determination would have to be made on the capacity of religious ethos to negate equality legislation he might still be over ruled but it would be an eye opener for many that ethos can be a determinant of policy. That is what religious authorities want kept out of sight. That threatens religious patronage and denominational education.
Same point I made pages ago.
If he could get his beliefs into a forum where a determination would have to be made on the capacity of religious ethos to negate equality legislation
His own actions mean he can never have that so its a moot point.
Probably. Much to the relief of vested interests in thwarting a secular state. As I said from the start: wrong hill.
I know.Isn't it appalling?
Some people are under the misapprehension that Educate Together schools are non-religious, but they aren't - you still get your dose of religion, just several bits, a sort of mishmash. Which is sometimes better than indoctrination into a single cult, nd sometimes not.
In some areas (not all by any means) though the Educate Together school is a CoI proxy, because they don't have the numbers for a school of their own. And 'liberal' catholics go along with this because it allows them to rub shoulders with a 'better class' of person.
I know a few years back some CoI shools were told they were in danger of losing their CoI status if they let in any more catholics, (i mean non-CoI, of course). I think they were told that an enrolment of less than 50% CoI would lose them their status.
I don't think anyone specifically stated it, but I read quite a number wishing him ill in prison, or even laughing about what might happen to him there.
I don't agree with his religious views, but I found those comments poorly thought out.
One funny thing about many of these CoI schools is that they would close for lack of numbers if it weren't for the well-off catholic parents who want their kids to mix with a better sort of child.
Yet we rarely if ever hear that these schools are elitest. Which they obviousy are.
It's funny how many people on this thread refuse to accept the fact of the religious nature of Irish education in general, and of this school in particular.
To me it is clear that Burke has a particular view of his protestantism and what it entails.
Unfortunately for him perhaps, the majority of CoI in this state (but maybe not in NI) are well-off and socially liberal (not leftwing though, that is something else!). So they want their schools to reflect this. But despite the majority of us in this state seeing protestantism as a sort of lassez-faire business, it has roots in something far different, and has a most illiberal side to it; this was even more so in the past. Burke would seem a sort of throwback to that strand of protestantism. Which probably has more adherents, even in this state, than the public face of the CoI would like to admit.
And despite the school's nice modern liberal policies, Burke can point to other aspects of the CoI which in his mind trump the school's stated policies - and he may have a stateable case in a court of law.
However this will not be open to him at this point in time, as his current problem is contempt of court.
A conspiracy theorist might wonder if he was carefully guided down that route in order to change the focus of the issue.
I doubt he needed any guidance in an offensive and melodramatic protest. I think the points about religious ethos apply to CoI but equally to RC and any other. Non denominational secular education should be the norm.
I quite like the use of the pronoun they for the singular. In fact it used to be quite common - until "he or she" replaced it.
If the school had simply stated that in the interests of inclusivity and simplicity it was reverting to the older use rather than introducing "he or she or they" it could have avoided the problem.
But then it would have upset the "he or she" brigade wouldn't it?
It's funny how many people on this thread refuse to accept the fact of the religious nature...........
Because its irrelevant to everyone except Enoch
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6cf5dc758823be7b2ebdb601ec3d15b8.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d5a8197d7274f92eab37915a6d9f12a1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
