The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from a person that the Irish Examiner breached the Press Council’s Code of Practice in an article published in January 2026.
The person said the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy), Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights).
The Article
The article is an opinion piece by one of the publication’s columnists. Headlined “Why the Enoch Burke saga is bigger than one teacher or one school”, it asserts that Mr Burke claims he has been jailed for upholding his religious beliefs, whereas “judges and others” insist his alleged transgression was harassment and that he had repeatedly refused to obey High Court rulings.
The piece then pivots to consider “what if…?” the issue was indeed about the right to refuse on religious grounds to use a child’s preferred pronouns. It explores legal and other disagreements involving human rights bodies, the Department of Education, parents, religious school managers, and transgender rights campaigners.
It argues that the upshot is “shouting and roaring from two opposite sides” each using an “absolutist lens.” It then quotes a medical consultant with long experience in trans healthcare who asserts that most “gender questioning” people he has met “just want to quietly follow their gender journey and get on with their life…” It ends with the suggestion that it would be better to “defer to the experts and elevate above politics and anger the welfare of individual young people living in a harsh world.”
The Complaint
On Principle 1 the complainant stated that the article conflated legally distinct issues, allowing a narrative rejected by the courts to frame public discussion, and risked misleading readers by repeatedly “re-centring” Mr Burke’s version of why he had been jailed even though it had been rejected by the courts.
On Principle 2, the complainant argued that while it was presented as an opinion piece the article blurred the distinction between established fact and speculative commentary.
On Principle 4, the complainant said the framing of issues concerning trans people and advocacy organisations risked reinforcing stigma and misunderstanding in relation to a vulnerable group.
The complainant asked the publication to publish “a counterbalancing perspective that centres the voices and experiences of those most directly affected.”
The Response
The publication said the topic of the discussion was in the public interest and that the article was “well balanced”. It said the complainant’s assertion about the risk of reinforcing stigma was groundless.
On Principle 1, it stated that the article had set out “clearly and succinctly” in the opening section that Mr Burke’s view of his situation was at odds with the legal position, and that it did not deviate from this. The publication said the case had nevertheless sparked discussion of the issue of the legal standing of pronoun recognition in schools and was referred to in this context.
On Principle 2, it said the article was flagged as an opinion piece written by one of its longstanding opinion writers. It said the analysis and commentary contained in the article were “robustly grounded” in a range of references.
The publication suggested that the complainant had “incorrectly included” Principle 4 in their complaint since “it deals with issues of malicious representation, unfounded accusations and the obligation to take ‘reasonable care in checking facts.’”
The Decision
This article is clearly presented as an opinion piece, and it contributes to a discussion about rights, representation and the welfare of young individuals “in a harsh world”, coverage of which is in the public interest.
The Press Ombudsman accepts the concern of the complainant that by using the Enoch Burke case as a launching pad for a discussion of the issues surrounding pronoun recognition in schools, there is a risk that the legal basis of the case against him might be forgotten.
However, she finds that the publication does, as it asserts, clarify this at an early point, and that it legitimately contextualises the piece by asserting that the case nevertheless gave rise to a debate about the legalities surrounding the use of pronouns. She finds that the article is not misleading and that there is no breach of Principle 1.
Principle 2 of the Code of Practice opens with the statement that “the press is entitled to advocate strongly its own views on topics.” Opinion pieces are designed to provoke debate. The opinions expressed in this piece are strong ones and those which relate to the sensitivities surrounding gender identity and young people are provocative.
It is particularly critical of those it depicts as debating through “roaring and shouting” and it explicitly favours one approach, one set of views. It is entitled to this partiality. The Press Ombudsman does not find that the distinction between fact and commentary is blurred, and she finds that Principle 2 was not breached.
The Press Ombudsman notes that complaints may be made under Principle 4 without invoking all of its clauses. There is no claim of “malicious misrepresentation” – nor does there need to be. The complainant is entitled to use the Principle to express their concern for “the wellbeing of young people affected by these debates” and to assert that the article risks stigmatising trans people and those who advocate for them.
However, the Press Ombudsman finds that Principle 4 was not breached. The publication indicates its disapproval of “loud” trans advocates but takes care not to feed into a stigmatising narrative about trans people and young people questioning their gender. It refers to the expertise of a doctor described as “working in trans healthcare” who refers to letting people “get on with their life in their preferred gender”. There is a recognition of vulnerability. The article ends with an appeal to “elevate above politics and anger” the welfare of the young.