Simeon Burke (this appears to be a cancellation thing in law profession)

[Retiredfromthere]

I may be missing something and am not in Ireland and did not follow the Enoch Burke case closely but this did catch my eye. Its concerning when a profession that has people like Jolyon Maughan in it can act like this.

Simeon Burke is the brother of jailed teacher Enoch Burke who was jailed for taking his 'anti-trans' views a tad far. Simeon has had a brush with the law about this himself- he was charged for public order offences connected with his brother's court case but appealed and charges were dropped.

Simeon studied law at University of Galway and University of Cambridge and was called to the bar in first place in Oct 2023 (of class of 150) and has won awards, but he has only just - two years on - been able to find anyone (from a list of 150 'Masters') who will take him on (as an unpaid pupil) so that he can progress to become a barrister. No-one would take him. But he now has a place and I hope he does well and is a real force in the legal profession. His pupilage will be with Ciara Davin, sister of conservative campaigner Maria Steen, who specialises in medical law.

This family may not be sympathetic figures but for all the Masters on the list to refuse to take such a very well qualified candidate for two years - presumably because of anti-trans activism/views - is noteworthy.

Background here
https://gript.ie/simeon-burke-closed-shop-law/
About being taken on - finally here
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2025/10/06/barrister-agrees-to-take-on-simeon-burke-to-complete-his-legal-training/

EB sounds like he is enjoy his "martyrdom" when in fact he's just being a colossal twit.

He's being sent to prison for breaking court orders etc, not for refusing to use a pronoun. And in the course of this lost all moral high ground.

@BruachAbhann
On the paid bit.

An Irish employee gets protection from unlawful dismissal after 1 years employment.

It is a Master ( pays to give instruction) Servant (takes pay to carry out instruction) relationship.

The employer has to prove a valid reason to remove the employees means of earning a living.
And while doing so must be fair.

Employment Tribunal frequently find that the reason is found true plus the removal is justified however the process used failed to be fair. And the employer ends up paying for the poor process.

In this case the school believed it needed to investigate and safeguard the staff and children.

They had options
• leave him in the role with access to the school or
• leave him in the role and instruct him to not attend his place of employment
both are valid and fair process up untill the final decision is made.

Removing his pay is/can be a form of unfair dismissal by the school breaching their contractual obligation to pay him.

And unfair process as no pay is a punishment (loss of living) when the case is not proven and leaves the employee unfairly disadvantaged in mounting a defense etc.

If it ends up the reason is true but the reason was "not such as to" justify the removal of living (failure in process) an ET can instruct an employer re-employ the employee even though it is not what the employer would ever do without an order (& EB wants to be employed there).

The aim of the employer is to be seen to be fair and prove that the relationship has broken down to such an extent that it is not possible or practical for the ET to make that order. Rather the ET would calculate a loss and order the employer to pay the employee extra to not ever come back.

The school is claiming it is his conduct at points XYZ.
He is claiming that it started with his objecting to the instruction and that the school are using points XYZ to push him out.

So the school would be very careful to follow the case law as effectively as they can when it comes to paying him.

There is a case Cigerette company in Dublin sacking a woman over her car sticker "smoking kills" so some of EBs case could follow the same logic.
Although I would counter that with he is being asked to promote the brand.

But I agree he unlike many has the access to (free) legal help that others would not have and choose not to run a proper case.

The school and the parents have a protected right to their (private service provider) school ethos.

So the ICCL demanding a RC school go against RC teaching is not imo supported in Law and cant be without at least 2 changes to the Consitution.

That article is terrifying! No mention or acknowledgement of women's rights at all.

That's something at least.

Jason Osbourne from Gript.ie has written an article relating to the Irish Times article on pronouns. He followed up with the Dept of Education to see if it's true that 'schools “must” use preferred names and pronouns, in daily interactions and official documentation.' A wishy washy response from the Department of Education but it boils down to the fact that it's not exactly accurate to say they 'must' use preferred names and pronouns.
gript.ie/the-department-of-education-on-pronouns-in-schools/

Burke is not employed by a RC school. Though I am sure Protestant schools would have the same defence?

Any Faith school (& Parent-led/collective school) who ethos it was to not use pronouns.

RC is "easy" as the last edict 2019/20(?) was that the soul/body is one to teach otherwise is effectively saying "God made a mistake" so thats forcing the school to break Faith. And schools are Church property run by local boards normally with a Church appointed member.

Protestant schools would be a little more complex imo if/as there is no clear "Church says NO" theology.

But the State cant ignore the Religion bits in the Consitution. Lots of the bits were put there to prevent the State from imposing the majority faith RC on the minority Churches (CoI etc.. )
A school ethos is a freedom of association "club" (alà a Golf club)

Children have rights but the pronoun demand is to force others to ignore themselves /their eyes / their beliefs which is again a freedom of belief and association.

The childs right to education is within the context of the parents moral code so the school may take in a student but the school dont have to take on the ethos of the child/parent eg RC child in Protestant school (< the other side of school cant impose its belief)

End of day if there was an actual law the school in question would have used that in the very first court hearing and added that as cause to sack him ( <assumption as I have not seen that reported by the media)

That's really useful, thank you, a very good article, which seems to show that TENI Law is indeed the equivalent of Stonewall Law - it's presented in terms of 'must' and 'obligation' and 'rights' but in fact it's a paper tiger.

Exactly!

@AnSolas Thanks for your insights. Do you think a school which has an ethos of using preferred pronouns ( for example, an Educate together school) can in the eyes of the law force parents and children to use them? It seems from what you're saying and from the gript article that they can't but wondering what you think.

I dont think they can
( "in theory" In real life the school likely will bully the child/parent out)

If taken to court as the use of pronouns not established as a legal obligation its a moral issue (personal belief/association v the common good)

An educational moral issue which is a parental right

ARTICLE 42
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Once the school is getting public funds the State has to defend the childs to an education and her/his parents rigths not to be forced into a belief pratice they morally oppose.
Again > the RC child who is allocated a place in the only school available an ET is being forced to deny her/his Faith.

ARTICLE 42A
1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

imo the DoE "child first" policy directly fails to recognise the child is subservient(?) to the parent in setting education rules. The child can be educated to a minimum moral standard (the common good etc) by the State but thereafter the parent can decide on the content "needed" for the formation of the childs personal moral code.

imprescriptible
The duty/right to educate is for a child which recognises the parent is always an "adult" and the child is a child (agewise and family member) whos rights can be protected and restricted in an age appropiate way.

Age appropiate kicks back into the Family Rights and Personal Rights articles.

"Pronouning" is imo a complex balance of multiple rights and EBs pissing at windmills is misleading the public perception and and doing the TRA job for them😕

[(Edit) for formating)

Well well well.. in today's Irish Times [which has been a bastion of genderwoo] there's an article [behind a paywall, sorry] which takes up all these points, and it looks like TENI Law is indeed Ireland's equivalent of Stonewall Law = not the law at all!

Department rejects ICCL claim schools are obliged to use trans students’ preferred pronouns
No legal obligation on schools to use preferred pronouns as stated in ICCL guide, says Department of Education

It [DofE] says that a “resource”, entitled Being LGBT in School, which was compiled with the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, has been circulated, but this does not assert any legal obligation to use preferred pronouns.
The department’s position puts it at odds with the guide circulated by the ICCL.
The ICCL guide says: “According to Department of Education guidelines, your school must make every effort to update your name and pronoun in relevant systems and documents. It must also use your correct name and pronoun in day-to-day interactions ..."

The guide was produced by the ICCL with €18,500 in support from the IHREC.
Asked about a possible inaccuracy in the guide, the IHREC pointed to a disclaimer on the document which says that “the views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission”.

The guide was written by representatives of Teni and Shoutout, organisations that lobby for LGBTQI+ people. They received assistance from the ICCL, the Free Legal Advice Centre and the LGTBQI+ Legal Advice Clinic. They also received advice from solicitors A&L Goodbody, who provided a “legal review”.
Asked about the nature of the legal review, a spokeswoman for the solicitors’ firm said it would not be commenting.

The article goes on to quote from a women's group, but very unusually does not give the last word to TENI, which has been the IT's pattern for years - for instance they gave them the last word on the UK Supreme court FWS ruling🙄

I can't imagine the Irish Times in the past being so forthright about the dodginess of lobbying groups writing guides for the ICCL that make dodgy legal claims, with government funding.

And solicitors A&L Goodbody must be having a moment this morning about the quality of their legal advice being put on display like this.

It feels like a significant change in media attitudes to gender ideology and at last a questioning of the hold TENI has had on public attitudes and policy making in Ireland.

Thanks @MarieDeGournay
Is Jason Osbourne gven credit?

A&L Goodbody, who provided a “legal review”.
Hummm........ Financial Services One-Stop-Shop Movers-n-Shakers Corporate focused into the US¹ and UK legal Powerhouse?

¹Like err.... getting actual US of A money... 🤣

And just more on the education point being parent led.....

If a child is not attending school (being schooled) the State can not jail the child it can and will jail and has jailed parents.

The State can jail both (if both are charged)
And I think can order this while making provision that the 2 terms do not overlap so that each parent carry out their duties "at home" while the other is inside.

[(Edit)
TBF to: A&L Goodbody, who provided a “legal review”.
The review is a "little" different from advice (we wrote this) there is a possible This is an utterly flawed document report 💅 ]

Is Jason Osbourne given credit?
No he's not, AnSolas, The article is by the IT political editor, Pat Leahy. The IT contacted the Dept of Ed etc themselves, so they did their own investigation, fair play, but it's significant that they originally report it the other day without negative comment, and then after Grift's article, they got investigative!

He could have managed this to keep his job and not use pronouns he was uncomfortable with. There are probably loads of schools up and down the country where this happens

But following the principal around at school events and shouting at them isn’t the way to advance your case.

The exact same issue happened to his sister when she was fired by her firm.

They are clearly smart, they had some victories in the courts eg leaving cert marking etc but their self belief has failed them in this case, but they are too arrogant to see it,

he’s never teaching in that school again, and he’s wasting years on it,

There was that recent Brendan O'Connor show where Brenda Power was talking about Enoch Burke and Pat Leahy shared his perspective that caught my attention as it sounded a bit GC. I can't share the link for some reason but it was the newspaper panel clip on 23 Nov, about 26 mins in. The whole discussion will raise your blood pressure but the interesting bit is the couple of interjections Pat Leahy makes. Therefore I'm not too surprised by this article.

Didn't half the family have a near brawl with court officials as well? I feel sorry for the lesser known Burke family members. Ireland is small and they are seriously tainted by the family's well deserved reputation.

Thanks @MarieDeGournay! I was delighted to see that article this morning. I was going to post it here later to you. Great that they actually mentioned people who care about women's single sex spaces and concern over medicalisation of children at the end. That's a first for the Irish Times as far as I've seen. Maybe common sense will prevail.

If Simeon Burke is capable of being the white sheep of his family, I think he deserves every chance to demonstrate it. Who knows, perhaps it would even "encourage the others".

I think they dropped the ball by getting the wrong end of the stick regarding this publication and then had to backtrack when the Dept of education rejected it.

Progress !

Yes, and a glimmer of your username
edited to say oops sorry I forgot I wasn't on Craicnet - An Solas means The Light in Irish.

.