Simply put, if someone did not use the pronoun "they" (not to be confused with the formal "you") chosen by a child, i.e., did not address them in the plural, they could end up in prison—it would be considered defamation of gender identity. The child would therefore require to be addressed as "Janko came to the meeting," and failure to comply with this obviously nonsensical wording would be punishable by law.

What such a conversation would look like in practice can be demonstrated by the example of a conversation between activists Marek Mach and Lívia Pavlíková. Mach, as a proponent of progressive rhetoric on the subject, argued that "when I start addressing someone the way they want to be addressed, it doesn't hurt me and it really helps them."

In response to this statement, Lívia Pavlíková said that such practices would "bring chaos to society" and, as a demonstration, asked Mach to address her with male pronouns for the rest of the conversation. Despite his conviction that "it doesn't bother me," activist Mach refused to respect her "chosen pronouns," explaining that he "respects the people who are affected by this."

Progressives would see Mach's behavior as an extremist criminal offense, specifically fulfilling the elements of the crime of defamation of a nation, race, or belief.

However, the public can already see what such progressive ideology looks like in practice in the case of the courageous Irish teacher Enoch Burke, who refused to respect a student's preferred fictional pronouns.

The teacher's struggle with the school system

Burke's fight with the system began in 2022 when, as a teacher, he refused to use gender-neutral pronouns for a transgender student at Wilson's Hospital School in County Westmeath, Ireland.

Ireland has legal recognition of gender identity enshrined in the Gender Recognition Act, under which a person over the age of 18 can change their legal gender based solely on their own declaration. Ireland also strongly protects such gender identity in civil and labor law (Employment Equality Act, Education Act – obligation to provide an inclusive environment for students).

As a Christian, Burke expressed his disagreement with transgenderism, stating that it was contrary to his religious beliefs. In addition, he objected to the proposed change of name and form of address for the student in question, arguing that it constituted child abuse and a violation of their constitutional rights.

The teacher was warned by the then school principal, Niamh McShane, that "the welfare of students at school is paramount and that the right of individuals to be addressed by the name of their choice in accordance with their chosen gender is a recognized right," even though the student was not yet of legal age, and to respect the "inclusive nature of the school."

However, due to his beliefs, the teacher refused to respect the student's use of the "preferred" pronoun and interrupted a school event (a religious service in the school chapel) to express his disagreement with this ideology. This was sufficient reason for the school to suspend Burke for gross misconduct (with pay) and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.

At the same time, the school asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting Burke from entering the school, and the court granted the request. The court based its decision on national law, according to which a suspended employee may not enter their workplace.

Despite the court order, Burke continued to visit the school as a teacher, and the school therefore asked the court to imprison him for "contempt of court for disobeying a court order prohibiting him from visiting his former workplace."

Enoch Burke justified his actions by arguing that his religious rights had been violated and that his suspension was unlawful, and that he was therefore still a teacher at the school – which is why he continued to return to his workplace.

Burke repeatedly complained that Judge Alexander Owens' original order prohibiting him from entering the school grounds was "manifestly incorrect." However, the courts noted that Burke did not appeal the order.

560 days in detention did not break the teacher's faith

The judges repeatedly jailed the teacher for contempt of court, and Enoch Burke was taken into custody a total of four times since 2022. At his first arrest, the court noted that Burke refused to mitigate the court's restrictive measures by agreeing to comply with the court order. Instead, the teacher declared that he would rather remain in prison "for the next 100 years than compromise his faith."

The teacher spent up to 560 days in custody, as he always returned to his workplace after his release, for which he was re-arrested. He repeated this pattern after his last release on January 14, 2026, when he returned to school the very next day.

Burke was released from custody because he challenged the composition of the disciplinary board on the grounds of the objective bias of one of its members and his objection was upheld in court. Kieran Christie, general secretary of the Association of Secondary Teachers in Ireland (ASTI), was a "promoter of transgenderism," and to an impartial observer, his decision-making could not appear objective.

This means that Burka's suspension, dismissal, and thus also the ban on entering school grounds were illegal.

Given the success of the bias objection, the court released the teacher from custody so that he could prepare for a new trial regarding his dismissal from employment, but at the same time warned him that he could not enter the school grounds. However, the teacher told the judge directly at the hearing that "today or tomorrow I will be at my workplace," which he did.

Since Enoch Burke disobeyed the order, the court sent him to custody for the fifth time for contempt of court, and Judge Brian Cregan told the teacher that he had an "unrivaled ability to shoot himself in the foot." In addition to detention, the court order against the teacher was enforced through fines, which currently exceed €220,000.

The essence of the dispute lies in ideology

Part of the public considers this case to be a labor dispute from a legal point of view, which is enforced by court decisions. Others, however, point out that a school cannot force a person of a certain faith to act in gross violation of their religious beliefs, referring to European standards guaranteeing fundamental rights in this regard.

The essence of the dispute, however, lies in the dangerous tolerance of progressive ideology in the school environment, which (like any other ideology) has no place there. The teaching process for children should be based strictly on objective facts, not fictitious feelings about reality.

Tolerance of different "identities," apart from professional medical and legal issues, undermines the very foundations of education. Instead of the "I learn about the world by examining facts" approach, schools have shifted to the "I transform the world by examining feelings" approach.

A separate issue is the legal dispute surrounding the suspension of a teacher, who successfully argued that he had been suspended by a biased committee. The committee was biased in favor of transgender ideology and against the teacher, who should never have been suspended. Despite the fact that one of the commission members was an obvious proponent of transgender ideology, no one objected – which testifies to the ethical approach of all participants to the overall fairness of the process.

His continued imprisonment is directly linked to this. The formal reason is a violation of a court order, but that order was issued on the basis of an unjustified suspension. Since the basis for issuing the order had no legal basis, the court order itself cannot be considered lawful.

Enoch Burke nevertheless spent 560 days in custody (with massive debts) because he believed that it was wrong to support children in various experiments with sex or gender, in which medical studies report many serious and often concealed negative consequences (psychiatric, hormonal, and other physical problems, infertility). He perceived this as a threat to children's rights and their abuse.

The future of the only correct progressive opinion

Adults can act as they see fit, but promoting or even supporting such practices instead of providing adequate treatment or support to minors is beyond the bounds of any humane approach to children, who may not fully understand what is happening to them during puberty.

If there were no nonsensical progressive belief in a single truth, whereby everyone else must suppress their beliefs and convictions simply to be forced to "respect the fictional reality of others" under threat of sanctions (of any kind), Enoch Burke would never have spent a single day in custody.

Not even imprisonment could shake this heroic teacher's convictions. This is a truly exceptional example, rarely seen in "advanced democracies," and his case has gained widespread support, at least among local residents, and coverage in the global media.

It is also a vivid example of how progressive extremism can affect the daily lives of citizens.

This is not fiction; there have already been attempts to introduce similar penalties for "identity defamation" in the Slovak Republic. With such a policy, everyone must ask what a society would look like in which all the fictions that can arise in a person's mind would be tolerated and enforced.

The message is clear: you will tolerate only our ideology at the expense of everything else, or you will pay for it. Whether with your job, your money, or even your freedom. The subsequent public labeling of extremism becomes an inevitable duty of progressive media and politicians.

However, extremism is not an action that seeks to protect children (and others) from harmful influences until they are able to decide for themselves what kind of life they want to lead. Extremism is a state in which a person fighting against a given setting is punished and persecuted.