Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

I've stayed out of this one as I've generally nothing to add that hasn't already been said much more eloquently than I ever could. For the record I am an atheist, but opposed to compelled speech, i.e. pronouns. I also think that although clearly intelligent, the family are obviously not interested in any form of civilised discourse, and in particular I abhor Enoch's hypocrisy in continually seeking remedies at law, while simultaneously demonstrating his contempt of court.

Others have described how he could have had a very different outcome if only he could have gone about it in a civil manner. Here's an example of a man who did exactly that - a good Christian like, though definitely not the same as Enoch. It's in Virginia, so different laws but a fair example I feel.

“I’m so relieved that our basic fundamental rights of freedom of expression, of freedom of religion have been formally upheld,” Vlaming told The Daily Signal.

Ironic that he is celebrating such, when clearly his idea of the "fundamental right of freedom of expression" doesn't extend to the student he misgendered.

It's not ironic at all. Regardless of personal beliefs, whatever way I look at that particular situation, if people are to be free to identify however they want, and let me be absolutely clear I passionately believe they should have that freedom, then it seems inescapable that people must also be free to identify as people who refuse to recognise identities chosen by others.

As previously stated, I am an atheist, but If I decided to become a Muslim I should be entitled to refuse to recognise someone's Hindu beliefs - as long as I behave within the law and workplace rules etc, and don't run around the place harassing people and screaming at them like demented banshees.

Tldr: If we want a free society we can't just have the freedoms that suit our own beliefs, otherwise we'd be back in the dark ages of Rome rule.

The analogy doesn't quite hold up.

If you're decide to become a Muslim and I decide to become a Hindu, then the analogy for what Burke is doing is not refusing to "recognise my Hindu beliefs"; it's refusing to accept that I am a Hindu and insisting that I am, in fact, something else.

The flip side of refusing to use the pronouns a person prefers for themselves is almost always using instead the pronouns that you prefer for them. (Mr Vlaming, in the case you mention, tried hard to avoid this but, in the end couldn't manage it.) In practical terms, there isn't a neutral position in which you can talk about someone without imputing some gender identity to them. So you're not just rejecting the gender identity they have chosen; you're asserting your own right to choose a gender identify for them (based on your own beliefs about the links between chromosomal sex and gender identity).

You might argue that you are entitled to express yourself in ways that reflect or align with your own beliefs. But I think we accept that there are limits to that. If I insist, for example, that you are not Irish because you are Black, or Protestant, or gay, based my beliefs about the intrinsic connection of Irishness, whiteness, Catholicism and heterosexuality, is that a protected form of free speech? What if I insist that you are not human, but subhuman, because you are gay or Jewish? Is that protected? What if I call for your human or civil rights to be stripped from you because of your supposedly subhuman status? Are all these things protected exercises of free speech because they are based on my beliefs?

"How far do we tolerate the intolerant?" is not a new question; nor is it an easy one to answer. A free speech absolutist might insist that we should always tolerate speech, no matter how intolerant that speech is. Not many people would go that far, and in fact nearly all societies do have laws that restraint speech that crosses some threshhold of intolerance (as welll as laws that restrain speech on many other grounds).

Your own suggestion is that intolerant speech is OK "as long as I behave within the law and workplace rules" but, in reality, that's not much of an answer. It just raises the question of whether there are any limits on what the law and/or workplace rules can say about this. For example, we might have a workplace rule in a school that says that staff must respect students' right to determine their own gender identies by, among other things, using student's preferred pronouns when referring to those students.

"as long as I behave within the law and workplace rules etc,"

But the teacher in the case you brought up here, did not obey their workplace rules. Yet here you are, celebrating his "victory".

That tells me all I need to know.

Based on a similar case in the UK, with arguably weaker laws in the teachers favour than here; he had no chance of winning in court. That's why the family have gone down this approach

When they think they have a legitimate case, they take it sensibly and often win - e.g. the college delays, the estimated grades etc.

When they know they've lost before they began, they roar and scream and have to be dragged out of courtrooms.

But by refusing to recognise someone else's beliefs are you not refusing to recognise someone's rights to a religious belief?

Either you accept their right to free speech, or you do not accept free speech.

I think that was pretty clearly implied in the post.

That may have been me, I can't remember, but if say EB had politely refused the school's 'request' to use the pronouns and the school took disciplinary action based on that then yes he certainly would have had a case similar to your link, but it never got that far and wasn't what he was dismissed for.

Yes, it might have been, and thanks for responding in the spirit of my original post, rather than accusing me of all sorts of things. I've re-read what I posted, and I believe I achieved my aim of giving an example of how Enoch might have gone about things differently. I also had the hope that I might get a response that would at least cause me to think deeply about complicated issues - Peregrinus has kindly given just such a response and I will respond to him in due course.

but it never got that far and wasn't what he was dismissed for

Absolutely, and I doubt if even his almighty god will be of much help to him in the unlikely event that he tries to put that enormous mountain of toothpaste back into a very tiny tube.

*edited for clarity

Absolutely, for the last sentence. For the first sentence, in my head at least, no matter how hard I look at it, the argument has to go both ways. Recognising someone's right to hold any belief should not require you to believe the same thing, or to behave in the way the other person's religious beliefs would require you to behave. For example, I respect the right of a devout Catholic to adhere 100% to the teachings of their church, but, as I happen to be fond of a bit of fornication, I'm not minded to behave in accordance with their belief system😀.

Accepting someone's right to free speech is not the same as enduring compelled speech. Though it might be ok for workplaces to have some form of the latter, it's not good for a country's legal system to enshrine such a principle.

Now, of course laws of the land come into play, and workplace rules, but there are ways of dealing with conflicts that might arise, which was the intent of my post.

I won't go on any longer as I'm trying to save a few words (and what's left of my brain) for Pergrinus😀.

That does seem likely all right, however the Forstater case in the UK comes to mind, where it was found that a belief in biology was protected. I know it's not the same scenario, but related. Even if laws were identical, I very much doubt if Enoch would be minded to give biology precedence over his religion despite it supporting his case.

TL:DR.

My response to your post was not uncivil, imo. You just didn't like it.

Sometimes all is revealed between the lines. Especially transparent in the "I'm just asking questions" type posts.

I am not interested in engaging in any discussion with anyone who advocates for a legal way to pretend gender diverse people don't exist. And in my experience, when someone makes a statement that they believe they should "have the right" not to use a gender diverse person's preferred name or their preferred pronouns, that is what they really want. A legal way to ignore the fact that gender diversity exists.

I have no time for that. Religious or not doesn't even factor into it as far as I'm concerned. I also have no interest in reading any more articles about other bigoted teachers. This person may have won a case in Virgina, USA, (a country which is primed to elect a bigot again) but he is still a bigot.

Ok, I'll have another go.

The analogy doesn't quite hold up.

Well, as my statistics teacher used to say "all models are wrong, but some models are useful". Flawed as it may be, you responded in such a way as to open a debate that I hope is respectful, and of some use to somebody. It has certainly given me pause for thought - bear in mind I didn't take a position in my first post, my motivation for posting was explained, and corroborated by @standardg60.

If you decide to become a Muslim and I decide to become a Hindu, then the analogy for what Burke is doing is not refusing to "recognise my Hindu beliefs"; it's refusing to accept that I am a Hindu and insisting that I am, in fact, something else.

I see your point, and the inadequacy of my phrasing, but the problem as I see it is that part of Burke's belief system is that the other person is not what they say they identify as. So, how is it possible to adjudicate, without saying some beliefs are better than others. How do we chose which is better, and who gets to chose?

The flip side of refusing to use the pronouns a person prefers for themselves is almost always using instead the pronouns that you prefer for them. (Mr Vlaming, in the case you mention, tried hard to avoid this but, in the end couldn't manage it.) In practical terms, there isn't a neutral position in which you can talk about someone without imputing some gender identity to them. So you're not just rejecting the gender identity they have chosen; you're asserting your own right to choose a gender identify for them (based on your own beliefs about the links between chromosomal sex and gender identity).

I think I get your point - I fully agree that in the case of using preferred pronouns, or not using them, neither one is a neutral act. That's why the whole thing is so difficult. I diverge a bit from your opinion though where you say "you're asserting your own right to choose a gender identify for them" - I think you're merely believing that they are a different gender to the one they believe they are. I admit that's a subtle distinction, and the believing is a lot less problematic than the behaviour that might follow from such beliefs. But, ultimately if they're entitled to believe something, and in the absence of an objective method of determination, then surely someone else is entitled to a different belief.

Mindful of the mod warning, and doing my best to argue from a general principle, let me proceed. I lived in the US for 13 months in '02/'03. I had always thought Ireland was a religious country, but many of the people I encountered would put us in the ha'penny place. (FWIW I think that rather than us being religious, even back in the day, I think we are merely tribal, or perhaps people who find ritual soothing, and notwithstanding the number of people who believe some or all of the churches teachings and admonishments, there are many who go along on Sundays for a sense of belonging). Just a couple of little incidents that stick in my mind: the office admin, who though George W. Bush was a good man because "he talks to God", the friends who reacted in shock when my then 9 year old son, on arrival in their house for a sleepover, loudly announced "where the hell am I going to sleep?". The use of the word "Hell", and indeed "God" in any non-religious context, was sort of sacrilegious - bear in mind that these were west coast liberals, and not at all religious.

What I'm trying to say is that for US religious folks, they really inhabit their beliefs - their beliefs are their identity. In the case I linked, it was inevitable that there would be a clash between beliefs systems or identities, so how does it get resolved?

You might argue that you are entitled to express yourself in ways that reflect or align with your own beliefs

I would😀.

But I think we accept that there are limits to that.

Well, I'd quibble with your right to say "we" if you are including me, but that's just on principle, and I accept that pretty much every freedom comes with a limit. The old "my freedom to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose" is a crude illustration of the principle.

If I insist, for example, that you are not Irish because you are Black, or Protestant, or gay, based my beliefs about the intrinsic connection of Irishness, whiteness, Catholicism and heterosexuality, is that a protected form of free speech?

Well, if I understand it correctly, that would be a racist statement, being as it ascribes characteristics that may be true of some, or even the majority of Irish, to every Irish person. In that particular case I'd allow it as a) it does me no harm, and b) I can easily refute it by pulling out my Irish birth certificate and those of my predecessors (although admittedly that trick didn't work for Obama), or perhaps do a DNA test, or just insist that you are an arsehole, or maybe just ignore you. None of those are perfect solutions, but life is messy.

What if I insist that you are not human, but subhuman, because you are gay or Jewish? Is that protected? What if I call for your human or civil rights to be stripped from you because of your supposedly subhuman status? Are all these things protected exercises of free speech because they are based on my beliefs?

Now we're in different territory, because in the previous case, however offensive your insistence might be, I'm no worse off by it, unless you are in a position of some power and follow up your insistence by actually depriving me of something I'm entitled to by virtue of being Irish. I can't actually think of an example as we can do things on the basis of citizenship but not, afaik on the basis of race, but hopefully the point is clear. I would regard the second as hate speech but not the first, while acknowledging that where we decide to draw the line, and then how we decide to enforce any legislation that might flow is a conundrum to which I have no gift-wrapped solution.

"How far do we tolerate the intolerant?" is not a new question; nor is it an easy one to answer. A free speech absolutist might insist that we should always tolerate speech, no matter how intolerant that speech is. Not many people would go that far, and in fact nearly all societies do have laws that restraint speech that crosses some threshold of intolerance (as well as laws that restrain speech on many other grounds).

Yes, we're in agreement there. As a general principle I'm not an absolutist - that implies certainty and I am wary whenever someone is absolutely 100% sure of anything. Just as an example, I'm actually in shock at how universities have de-platformed people who might express an opinion that might injure some of the students. I think it would be much more beneficial for the students in particular, and for society as a whole, to invite them in, listen to their arguments, and respond with better ones. That's of course with the caveat as outlined above - there has to be a limit, but in the cases of de-platforming that I'm aware of they were nowhere near that limit (that said while acknowledging my inability to adequately define where I think that limit should be).

Your own suggestion is that intolerant speech is OK "as long as I behave within the law and workplace rules" but, in reality, that's not much of an answer. It just raises the question of whether there are any limits on what the law and/or workplace rules can say about this. For example, we might have a workplace rule in a school that says that staff must respect students' right to determine their own gender identities by, among other things, using student's preferred pronouns when referring to those students.

I probably didn't word that well but I'm at a loss as to how to improve it. Obviously, as well as laws and workplace rules, there are social norms like manners and common decency that would govern behaviour (and I think we're really concerned with behaviour rather than just beliefs - @suvigirl has given me permission to have any of them that I want) and those things mean different things to different people. I would venture to suggest though that if you're at work and you're having to consult the employee handbook, the Irish statute book or case law history on any kind of frequent basis to guide your conduct rather than just the actual nuts and bolts of your job, then you probably need to go somewhere quiet and rethink your strategy, get a mentor or find a different job. I think any behaviour in the workplace that leads to disruption such as to hinder the smooth running of the place needs to be dealt with quickly and firmly, again consistent with the law of the land.

Sorry for the length of this post - nobody is forced to read it though let alone agree with it so other than the wear and tear on boards servers it should be grand. Just to go back to the thread topic and the original conflict without going into the detail: as a general rule, when there is an imbalance of power, I'm inclined to err on the side of the person who's more vulnerable. I think this may be informed by some incidents in my past. As a first year secondary student I encountered a Christian brother who seemed to consider it essential to his identity to beat me with a leather strap (he wasn't anywhere near as savage as others I encountered however, I actually think he sincerely believed that was the way to run the show). I took a different view of the situation - my transgression was being out of my seat 10 min before class officially started - refused to put my hand out, and ended up in the head brother's office. Now, the head was a much more benign figure in terms of manner, but no less intimidating to a young, socially immature and very physically frail boy. In the end there was no punishment, but looking back the whole thing was more traumatic than any of the beatings I received. In other words, standing up for a belief is difficult, especially in such a situation. I'm just saying we have to do our best to accommodate opposing beliefs, however distasteful they may be, while acknowledging the difficulty of doing so without some harm to someone. Perhaps, like democracy, we have to settle for the least worst system we can manage.

Agreed, but I think I elaborated a bit on it in my response to Peregrinus. The difficulty I'm having is how do we decide which beliefs to accept - there has to be some limit, even if just for practical reasons?

I don't think refusing to use someone's pronouns is the same as demanding that they denounce their declared identity and use the pronouns you demand - I would never advocate for the latter.

If I appear evasive, I'm trying to argue on the basis of a general principle. E.g., rather than saying that nobody should be discriminated against due to their homosexuality or for being trans, I'd prefer the situation that no-one should be discriminated against due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Universal rights if you like. That is the current situation as I understand it and I fully support it.