I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
Hedonism?
Just because you feel good, doesn't make it right - oh no.
That comes under "everything else snowballed". I agree with you. I'm not trying to rewrite reality.
and yet you downplayed what happened.
Agree 100% with all of this except the last line. Burke has done a lot wrong, but all the wrong things he did were subsequent to the initial issue. Harassing people etc is not ok. But objecting to transgenderism being enforced with wrong pronouns should be allowed.
It was only Burke that caused the "snowballing". It was wholly within his power, and within reason, for him to stop it at any stage.
Not at all, but let me repeat and emphasise here again for the avoidance of doubt. Burke is a fool. His actions including accosting the principal and multiple breaches of the peace are frankly deplorable.
Burke was not disciplined for raising a religious concern.
The Principal sent the email to all staff in relation to the trans student on the 9th May.
Burke replied by email "raising his concerns" on the following day. If the disciplinary action taken against him was due to his raising his concerns, why was he not suspended when he replied to that email?
I'll answer that for you - it is because he wasn't suspended for raising his concerns.
It was after Burke went nuclear and decided to accost the Principal, his boss, at a public school event, on 21st June that led to disciplinary action being taken against him.
He was put on "paid administrative leave" / suspended on 22nd August, pending a disciplinary hearing on 14th September.
He refused to stay away from the school despite his suspension, and THAT is when it all began to snowball.
nobody has said otherwise.
But you see, your experience in St.Finians points towards the hub of this problem. To wit, why should one majority type of religious dogma have influence in education, whilst another minority religious viewpoint be squashed? And both sets of beliefs equally sincerely held.
Which in a wider sense is important, I'd think some of the stricter Presbyterians up north will be looking at Burke and arguing that the Republic continues to be a cold place of no welcome for them.
To those who say this has nothing to do with religious views, that's sticking your head in the sand. It's an argument of convenience, not based in the reality of the case.
But, was it though? Had he objected to the transgender request to use incorrect pronouns that he believed contradicted his religious beliefs but not accosted anyone or anything after that, would it all be ok? I don't think so. And that's the point that is missed here. We can't have thought police telling us what is or isnt ok.
To be clear again, I am a (militant at times) atheist. I do not support any forms of religion especially nutjob extremists like Burke.
Hes not being fined for using the wrong pronouns though hes being fined for not following the directions of the court and staying away from the school. If he had done the grown up thing and followed this through all the required procedures correctly your argument might have merit and as previously outlined by various posters he could likely have taken this to the highest court in the land but he didn't so your argument is pointless.
May be having the bailiffs going through his family home and loading stuff up on their van..... I remember one guys face when it started to sink in that the Dublin City Sheriff really was a thing!
Enoch Burke has done nothing wrong.
He has done EVERYTHING wrong here.
Let's for a moment take his side on the issue of the existence and acceptance of Transgender people.
He was asked to do something if found unacceptable to him according to his beliefs. and he has a right to object to that request , no one is disputing that right.
His pathway to raise that objection would have been to raise a formal complaint with his employer through the documented process for any employer/employee issue.
That would have moved through the process and arrived at an outcome/decision. If Enoch did not like that outcome he could then go to the Department of Education for further adjudication , again if Enoch was unhappy with that outcome he could go to the WRC or perhaps directly to a court of law and pursue his legal challenge there , potentially all the way to the Supreme Court or to Europe.
Had he done so , he would still be employed , he would not have spent a single second in prison and people, whilst not necessarily agreeing with his position would have understood his right to pursue his case as far as the law allowed.
Instead of doing any of that , Enoch decided that his contract of employment did not exist and that the law of the land did not exist and simply decided that he could act exactly how he wished and that everyone else would simply be ignored.
For what feels like the 1000th , here is the basic timeline of events thus far.
TL;DR - Enoch has had ample opportunities to defend his Religious beliefs and rights , but he has simply chosen not to and as a result nothing that is going on right now has anything to do with Religious rights , it's simply a story about a man who thinks the law doesn't apply to him.
why should one majority type of religious dogma have influence in education, whilst another minority religious viewpoint be squashed? And both sets of beliefs equally sincerely held.
if any set of beliefs promote bigotry, then it cannot be allowed to be practised in a workplace.
if it were allowed, any nazi could argue its their 'religious beliefs' and demand to be allowed to practise naziism without consequence.
Burke is a bigot, and as such has faced, is facing, and will face, the consequences of him holding that boggotted belief.
Would never happen. They hate each other more than Enoch hates obeying court orders.
Which do ye think Enoch dislikes more, transgender or transubstantiation?
That was not the argument put to me when I asked the question a few days ago on this thread. Excuse my laziness but it's a very fast moving thread and I can't be ar$ed going back to the posts in question but the issues initially centered around the "respect" needed to refer to a student as they instead of using the correct gendered singular pronoun.
But objecting to transgenderism being enforced with wrong pronouns should be allowed.
It is allowed and there was a clearly documented procedure in place allowing Enoch to have that argument with his employers and perhaps ultimately the State if he took the case through the courts.
But he didn't , so it's just about him and his refusal to recognise the law.
You do realise Enoch Burke and his family are different entities? You can't take his parent's/family's property if it's Enoch that owes the money?
Except Enoch won't pay the money. Not a snowball's chance in hell. The State will have to pay its own legal costs and there'll be less money to fund LGBTQ+ communities and to fix the potholes in Mayo roads. Everybody loses. Except the legal team representing the State. They'll get well paid.
If he had objected only then he would not have been sacked, locked up or be facing massive fines for contempt.
If he lives at home with his parents and its a location covered by a sheriff (eg Dublin, Cork) then they can enter and reposess items from that address to cover the debt. It would be then up to the residents to prove what was not owned by Enoch rather than the burden of proof on the state to prove otherwise.
You're probably right, if we ever have an ultra nationalist state - then the prevailing views of this will reign over others. So you're basically arguing that the majority view rules and that minorities may pee off and suck it up? I wouldn't have thought a popular argument here?
Not necessarily - If , for example they all have a shared "communal" bank account and the courts can show that Enoch contributes to that then they can seize a portion of those assets on the basis of shared ownership etc.
They couldn't take the family home for sure , that's protected under the law , but they could take everything in it (or at least an amount pro-rated to Enochs calculated contribution to the household)
Interesting, if that is publicly available information could you link to the policy or process here please? In which case the argument in favor of burke is indeed null and void. If there is a dispute resolution process for such instances at the school and it was disregarded by Burke then he's more of a fool than I even thought!
Well in one of the quotes from the quote bubbles around Burke in the image below states -
'The secular agenda from those who excluded God from their imagination is to create a world devoid of moral restraint where people are free to indulge in their sexual lusts'
Which to seems to include all sexuality's where there is no moral restraint.
It is interesting that the current Pope on the Catholic side of the fence who many see as progressive. Has only recently reiterated that sexual intercourse outside marriage is a sin, in the eyes of the church.
But sure, hardly anyone follows those doctrines these days, people go a la carte instead.
Which is similar to another point Burke about his Protestantism above as well.
'Too many today are not serious in their commitment to the truth, to halt between two opinions is not remain convinced of neither'
Which would correlate to his annoyance that Wilson Hospital School are in effect not adhering to their Church of Ireland ethos.
The rest of the quotes show Burke is not seeking to be liked or expected to be liked. He just views it as part of the sufferance for his beliefs. He won't go along with modern fashions if they are inconsistent to his belief system.
'An absolute refusal to conform to worldly fashions'
He views it as he HAS to keep appearing outside the school as he would view himself as 'crumbling to the giants of pagan culture' to do otherwise.
It is likely he will keep turning up at those school gates and stay in jail if required -
'There is no room in Christendom for those who desire an easy life'.
Burke views those who claim to be Christians and sit it out on the sideline as not being true to their faith in 'the battle'.
This fella is in for the long haul.
Honestly, this has been gone over again and again. every day there is somebody new coming and asking questions already well answered.
Except accost his employer at a public function, and ignore High Court Orders ordering him to stay away from the School.
The rest of your post, I couldn't even be bothered breaking down all that is wrong with it, at this stage.
if there is a joint bank account they can take the lot.
Yes. Nobody forced him to refer to the child in any way. It would be entirely possible to go through your life without referring to a specific individual by a "pronoun". Pronoun in itself means a word you can use in place of a noun - "John, give that pen back to Mary now".
It has nothing to do with religion. It would be the same as if he was a fitness fanatic and the principal asked him not to refer to an overweight child in the school as "hippo-arse".
Sounds pretty unbelievable that the Sheriff can go into a parent's house to take away property that is theirs for something their son owes. I think that law is wrong but I do accept what you are saying.
One would assume feckall stuff in that house is Enoch's apart from his clothes and an odd bit of bric-a-brac given that he wasn't living in the family home (that's assuming he was renting somewhere near the school).
Regarding the communal bank account, if such a thing existed, I doubt Enoch is contributing to it at the moment given that he is now unemployed.
Except that he wasn't fired for being a bigot. He was fired for being a bully.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/08231869fd786c2459f2d35b207b4d26.svg)
