I knew it would come to that, but I’m still amazed it happened so soon. Enoch Burke, who taught history and German at a Church of Ireland school, has been sentenced to an indefinite prison term for refusing to refer to a ‘transitioning’ pupil as ‘they’, rather than ‘he’.
Mr Burke explained that, as an Evangelical Christian, he didn’t approve of ‘transitioning’ and refused to abide by its rules. One would think a church school would have little problem with such intransigence – after all Genesis recognises only two sexes, male and female. But thinking so would indicate ignorance of modernity, whether secular, ecclesiastic or any other.
Actually, one doesn’t have to be an Evangelical or any other kind of Christian to refuse to mangle the English language in such a totally cretinous, tasteless manner. Nor is it only the personal pronouns. What about the verbs linked to them? Should they be singular or plural? Doesn’t everybody wince, even writhe, in disgust or at least discomfort when hearing sentences like: “I bumped into Nigel yesterday, and they are fine?” Or should it be “they is fine?”
To be technical about it, Mr Burke, he of the great name, wasn’t thrown in prison merely for failing to acknowledge the grammatical nuances mandated by modernity. He was only summarily suspended, but continued to show up at the school’s staff room, saying he was there “to do his job”.
Eventually the school got a court order to keep him out, but he flouted the injunction, insisting it was unjust. It was only after Mr Burke persisted in his defiance that he was put in prison and told that’s where he’d stay until he agreed to comply with the court order. Since the teacher seems to be made of stern stuff, that could well mean life imprisonment.
According to Mr Burke’s supporters, “the whole country is behind him”, while his family insists he is being persecuted for his Christian beliefs. Legally speaking, that’s not quite true, but we are none of us sticklers for casuistic detail, are we?
Mr Burke was only sacked for his Christian beliefs. He was imprisoned for violating a court order. However, the events were set in train by his principled, self-sacrificial objection to woke insanity. But in a society of madmen, any sane person is a pariah to be isolated.
The row broke out last spring, when head mistress Niamh McShane sent an e-mail to the faculty informing them of the ‘transitioning’ student’s new name and pronouns. At the ensuing staff meeting, Mr Burke made an impassioned speech to the effect that, as a Christian, he was “opposed to transgenderism” and therefore wouldn’t comply.
He then begged Miss McShane to reconsider, which she refused to do, feeling she was firmly on the side of the woke angels. All hell broke loose, with the flame of nationwide scandal singeing not only Mr Burke but also his tormentor, who had to resign.
Every time I read stories like this, I am reminded of Cincinnatus C., the principal character of Nabokov’s novel Invitation to a Beheading. That dystopic work depicts a society where everybody is transparent, and only Cincinnatus is opaque. For that crime he is sentenced to death, so you might say that Mr Burke has got off easy.
But that’s the thin end of the wedge. As far as I know, Mr Burke is the first person to be sent to prison, if at one remove, for insisting on using the pronouns dictated by English grammar, not subversive woke fanatics. But I can confidently predict he won’t be the last.
Wokery is the worst kind of tyranny, the kind that strives to dictate not only what people do, but also what they say and ultimately what they think. That sort of thing is called totalitarianism, and it’s much worse than mere authoritarianism.
Authoritarian rulers may be proscriptive, but they aren’t prescriptive. Some of them may explain to the people in simple terms what they aren’t allowed to say on pain of punishment. But such tyrants stop short of telling people what they must say – or else.
The totalitarian tyranny of which I have first-hand experience, the Soviet Union, wasn’t like that. It insisted on everyone using the prescribed jargon, and the punishment for failure to do so was severe. Hence the Soviet Union was worse than even Nazi Germany, where anyone other than a Jew could get away with not saying ‘Heil Hitler’ – as long as he refrained from saying ‘Down with Hitler’.
The modern woke tyranny displays every feature of the Soviet brand, an analogy that many people object to quite strenuously. They say that fine, people are told not only what language they shouldn’t use, but also what language they must use. But we don’t have night-time arrests and concentration camps, do we now?
To which I always reply: “Not yet”. For any tyranny will always impose its diktats by violent methods if no others work. Enoch Burke’s case, the first swallow that makes a slammer, proves my point.
“Doesn’t everybody wince, even writhe…?” No, they do not. While it may not be as blatantly egregious as Nigel/they, I come across someone/they or anyone/they often. Too often. I would say that these pages are the only source I can be sure to read without suffering such discomfort.
Where is it written in the U.S. Constitution, any constitution, or found in British Common Law, the Bible, or any time or place in human history, that a person can expect to live a life without feeling offended? Why does the (obviously delusional) student get to set the standard? Why are Mr. Burke’s sensibilities and arguments ignored? As another commenter wrote, “[T]here’s an unchallenged Marxist presupposition that the oppressed are always in the right.” But why do so many instantly capitulate? Why not respond that the request is unreasonable, the student is confused, and send him on his way (to a counselor)? As I recently heard someone say, “Life is rough. Get a helmet.”
Why stop at pronouns? Should I demand my own adjectives? (Handsome, intelligent, brilliant, desirable, wealthy?) If I tried that I would be shouted down. It would be said to be ridiculous – which it is, but no more than deciding my pronouns.
Interestingly enough, so far, the woke world was against prisons in general.
Most of the ruling of the ECHR/CEDH was about correcting national penal code to adjust to modern woke opinion, on the claim it was what was written in the original Convention main idea.
For instance, France was condemned because its law permitted to sent to jail someone publicly supporting terrorism.
Next step is now, where Croatia was condemned for being too lenient and no sending to jail someone guilty of sexual felony against a woman.
I surely think this can of felon should be sent to jailed. But suddenly, the notion that jail-time could not be served unless proven that it is absolutely necessary was thrown in the toilet. And why? Only because the court follow a political project that cannot be the real scope of the original Convention.
Mr Burke has already been in prison for two hundred days. As you say, he’ll stay there for the rest of his life until he performs the Evangelical Protestant equivalent of trampling on a crucifix.
Ireland was once a land overflowing with saints. Now it’s a land overflowing with abortionists and atheists. “O Lord, how long…?”