Keld [he/him, any]

  • 2 Posts
  • 50 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 23rd, 2025

help-circle

  • Yes now let’s keep reading.

    Nothing in this subsection (1)(b) shall limit a person’s duty to report under (a) of this subsection.

    When any member of the clergy, practitioner, county 26 coroner or medical examiner, law enforcement officer, professional 27 school personnel, registered or licensed nurse, social service 28 counselor, psychologist, pharmacist, employee of the department of 29 children, youth, and families, licensed or certified child care 30 providers or their employees, employee of the department of social 31 and health services, juvenile probation officer, diversion unit 32 staff, placement and liaison specialist, responsible living skills 33 program staff, HOPE center staff, state family and children’s ombuds 34 or any volunteer in the ombuds’ office, or host home program has 35 reasonable cause to believe that a child has suffered abuse or 36 neglect, he or she shall report such incident, or cause a report to 37 be made, to the proper law enforcement agency or to the department as provided in RCW 26.44.040. 38 p

    In other words, everyone else also has to report if they find out through privileged information, like a patient talking about abusing/being abused to their doctor, too.

    That thing there just makes it so that clergy can’t hide behind their role as supervisors of an organization without making, say, the person running a local red cross or soccer club a mandatory reporter. It is very poorly worded and that is what they will pounce on. But be for real.





  • as opposed to doctors, lawyers, or other professionals who are protected from this duty of having to report on past crimes under penalty of law

    Except doctors in Washington state are all already mandatory reporters, this just makes priests part of a group that already includes doctors. The article explicitly mentions this. It would have taken you two seconds to look that up even if you had not read the article. This is literally bishops saying that reporting sexual assault violates their civil rights. Hiding behind the sanctity of the “seal of the confessional” (As they shuffleremoveds priests around to avoid them being prosecuted)




  • This doesn’t actually seem too crazy? There’s a bunch of social pressure to be employed and a lot of shame associated with unemployment, if you’re financially capable of paying a small fee to avoid that kind of embarassment it makes sense some would do it. And for all the weaknesses of capitalism, finding a money making niche and exploiting it isn’t one of them. In the west we had people doing the same shit with wework spaces. The fictitious tasks and staging a worker rebellion seems a little silly, and I suspect that’s exaggerated or misunderstood (But what do I know?) but the idea that this is inherently silly doesn’t really strike me as that reasonable.