Teacher Enoch Burke has denied that his own behaviour had led to reputational damage rather than a newspaper article he claims defamed him.
Mr Burke was being cross examined on the second day of an action for defamation against Mediahuis, the publishers of the Sunday Independent over an article published in October 2022.
The court has heard the article claimed Mr Burke had to be moved to another cell in Mountjoy Prison because he was annoying other inmates with his religious beliefs.
Mr Burke disagreed with Senior Defence Counsel Ronan Lupton that he had built a profile for himself dating back many years, and that his behaviour had already damaged his reputation.
He also disagreed that saying someone was annoying was a matter of opinion and could not damage someone’s reputation.
Mr Lupton put it to Mr Burke that the public controversy that surrounded him was “because of the way you behave. You breach court orders, you misbehave in court”.
Mr Lupton added that Mr Burke’s reputation was such that the article complained of was incapable of damaging his reputation.
Earlier, it was put to Mr Burke that a letter had been written by the Student Council at Wilson’s Hospital School complaining about his presence at the school after he was suspended.
Mr Lupton said the letter was impactful as it had complained about the impact of his presence on their education.
Mr Burke said he had not seen the letter but did not believe it was representative of the students.
He said it would be “a small number in favour of transgender ideology, three or four in every school”, but it did not fit with the great support he received from students.
Mr Burke said students had flash mobbed him, looked for his autograph and wanted their picture taken with him.
He rejected suggestions that this was because of his profile and said it was because “they missed their teacher and hated to see me denigrated and ridiculed”.
Asked if they liked him so much they might like to know how he was getting on in prison, he said it was a possibility.
Mr Lupton put it to him that his suggestion that the publication of the article in question would have affected his employment or promotion prospects was “complete nonsense”, because he was “the engineer and architect” of all that brought “flash mob dancing and autograph seeking”. “It was all created by you?,” Mr Lupin asked, and Mr Burke replied “absolutely not”.
It was put to him that he had chosen to spend more than 340 days in prison and could leave at any stage if he chose to purge his contempt.
Mr Burke said contempt related to someone who had done something wrong, and he had no contempt for what was right, and of rights being upheld.
Burke ‘could not’ sacrifice Christian beliefs
He said the matter “all goes back” to when he was told by the school that he must sacrifice his Christian beliefs and he could not do that.
He said no one chose to go to prison and the high court order requiring him to stay away from Wilson’s Hospital School was unlawful.
Mr Lupton said “but in reality, which seems to be escaping your views, an order was made for you not to attend at the school and that is not an order you deem you have to comply with?”.
Mr Burke repeated that it was an unlawful order.
Mr Burke rejected a suggestion from Mr Lupton that he was a person of notoriety even in Mountjoy Prison, as inmates said on the first day that “they recognised him from the telly” which was in advance of the publication of the article he complains of.
Mr Burke said he rejected that utterly as it was a negative and scurrilous phrase.
He did not agree that his employment situation and his compliance with the law were separate, and said he would never believe that his actions amounted to misconduct because his religion was the most precious thing in his life, and it manifests itself through actions and speech.
He rejected as “a disgusting and horrible allegation” that at a previous court appearance he had wanted to purge his contempt, but someone told him not to.
It was put to him that his court appearances on a number of occasions were marked by interruptions, removals and distractions.
Mr Burke replied that court appearances were stressful, high stakes adversarial settings where one’s livelihood can be stripped away and were akin to a war zone.
He objected to a suggestion from Mr Lupton that he could not control himself in a court setting and disagreed that it was his behaviour before the courts that had created controversy.
He said while a social media account on X was in his name, he did not have access to it but his family or his brother did.
Mr Lupton referenced a number of videos on the account such as the “where is John Rogers?” video and others aimed at Government ministers adding: “you are a plaintiff in a defamation action. If your reputation is so important, you clearly want to know what is being published in your name, but you don’t seem to know what is there?”.
Mr Burke replied that his family were good people.
Earlier, Mr Lupton suggested that Mr Burke had been building his profile since 2010 and referred to photographs of him outside the Oireachtas holding a poster with a quote from the bible along with other websites and interviews he had given on a number of issues including homosexuality and gay marriage.
Mr Burke said he enjoyed public speaking and engaging in debate, but Mr Lupton suggested it pointed to “intolerance”.
“Is it correct for you to thrust your religious views on someone else, and tell them how they should live their lives? That can’t be correct,’ Mr Lupton said.
Mr Burke said he rejected that utterly, saying that expressing his religious view was not akin to dictating to someone how they should live.
The case continues tomorrow.
