An Irish teacher who was previously jailed following a transgender row has told a Dublin court that the school where he worked had asked him to “engage in a falsehood”.
Enoch Burke is appealing against injunctions taken against him in the High Court by a Co Westmeath secondary school, which has been heard despite concerns about his possible “ongoing” contempt of court.
On Thursday morning, the Court of Appeal agreed to hear his case but said it would have “great difficulty” with someone who seeks the authority of the court while also “at the same time saying ‘I’m not going to obey an order I dislike'”.
Mr Burke has been seen on the grounds of Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath over several days despite a court order banning him from doing so, and an order to fine him 700 euro for each day he attends.
The German and history teacher did not explicitly indicate on Thursday whether he would continue to attend the school pending a decision from the Court of Appeal.
There is a school midterm on this week, lawyers for the school told the court.
The evangelical Christian, who represented himself, was accompanied in court by his siblings and parents Martina and Sean Burke.
Mr Burke was suspended from work on full pay last year pending the outcome of a disciplinary process following incidents stemming from a row with the school over a student who was transitioning genders.
He was committed to prison by a High Court judge in September after breaching a temporary court order to stay away from the school while suspended. He was released before Christmas.
In his appeal to the court on Thursday, Mr Burke said he could not accept “transgenderism” due to his Christian beliefs, after teachers at the school were asked to address a student by “a new name and the ‘they’ pronoun”.
This was indicated in an email from the school principal sent in May 2022.
Mr Burke argued that the injunctions issued against him preventing him from attending Wilson’s Hospital School were not valid and that the orders issued by the High Court were “manifestly unconstitutional and unlawful”.
He accused one High Court judge of operating an “injunction shop”.
“It’s as if she’s operating some kind of shop and the school can come in and say ‘injunction please’ and the court will say ‘OK’,” he told the three-judge panel.
He accused another High Court judge’s 19-line judgment of being a “mockery” and failing to provide reasoning for its conclusions.
“It’s a jumbled sentence, judge, and that’s being generous. It’s like a seminar was given and the weakest student was asked to regurgitate what the fair question test was,” he said.
We're very willing to embark on an appeal, notwithstanding what has concerned to date, but we have concerns as to what will happen in the future and we have concerns as to what will happen while the matter is before the court— Justice George Birmingham
Mr Burke also contended that proper procedure was not followed in his suspension on full pay in autumn last year pending a disciplinary process, and said he continued to attend the school while on paid administrative leave because “to sit at home would be to admit that I had erred or transgressed”.
Mr Burke was asked by the President of the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice George Birmingham, “where is the individual pupil in all of this?”, and by Ms Justice Maire Whelan: “Are you asserting that rights and interests of students are reduced to zero in this application?”
Mr Burke responded that he wished to focus “on the issue at hand” which is the “demand” that was made to teachers in how to address a student at the school.
“In relation to my participation in transgenderism, I was being forced to say something that I didn’t believe in… to engage in a falsehood with my lips. That’s what I was being asked to do,” he said.
“I was the one who was being compelled to act contrary to my religious beliefs.”
Mark Connaughton SC, for Wilson’s Hospital School, told the court that as Mr Burke is appealing against the school’s decision taken in January to dismiss him, there is “an elaborate procedure” in place which restricts what he can say pending a full hearing in April.
He indicated to the court that there was a mechanism available to Mr Burke that would have taken in his religious views.
He added: “There was no give on Mr Burke’s part whatsoever and it only escalated from there.”
The court heard that it was one thing to take “an entrenched view” and another to behave in an objectionable manner that “falls below the standard” expected of someone in their place of work.
He said that there were several attempts made to try to get Mr Burke to do what he had been asked to do.
“This was about behaviour within the school and the behaviour towards a particular student within the school,” he said.
Asked by Mr Justice Birmingham whether he made an effort to accommodate the situation, Mr Burke responded that when the email sent from the principal stated “it is expected of you”, it did not accommodate him.
“There was no accommodation of me there judge, that is certain.”
The German and history teacher confirmed to the court that the student in question did not attend his classes but argued that all teachers had some level of interaction with all students, either in corridors or acting as a substitute teacher.
When asked by Ms Justice Whelan how he imagined interacting with the student in question, Mr Burke said: “The question before the court doesn’t involve that.”
Asked by Mr Justice Birmingham whether his position made it “an impossibility” for the school to welcome a request that was possibly made by the student and their parents, Mr Burke responded: “A school is not entitled to be more welcoming than the law permits.”
When asked by Mr Justice John Edwards whether there was a more appropriate setting than at a religious service held by the school “to make a public spectacle and to confront the principal in the way in which she was confronted”, Mr Burke responded that “under no circumstances could it be portrayed as gross misconduct”.
Earlier in the day, the court expressed concern that Mr Burke may “pick and choose” what orders of the court he abides by.
“We’re very willing to embark on an appeal, notwithstanding what has occurred to date, but we have concerns as to what will happen in the future and we have concerns as to what will happen while the matter is before the court,” Mr Justice Birmingham said.
He said the court would reserve judgment and would give one as soon as they are in a position to do so.
Martina Burke attempted to make a contribution before the three judges promptly left the courtroom.
