As we are seeing more and more in the media (mainstream and social), many sex crime claims based solely on uncorroborated verbal testimony actually find their way into courtrooms. These types of claims seem to proceed through the legal system as believed to be true, unless proven otherwise. The removal of the corroboration requirement in the 1980s is mainly what paved the way to allow such flimsy claims to waste government resources and livelihoods of the innocent accused in Canadian courtrooms. When an innocent man (or woman) is accused of such a crime with no supporting evidence, it becomes a classic game of clue for the innocent accused to first figure why the accuser (male or female) would make such a claim. Although the general belief is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proof to prove their case

The hypocrisy of Canadian media publishing an American Associated Press article entitled “Trump claims Obama had his phones wiretapped, no proof cited” astounds me. It is an astonishing example of the selectiveness of what type of claim demands proof. In this case, any chance the media gets to corner President Trump into admitting he may be making a false claim is an acceptable opportunity to demand proof. All the while, the same media outlets will generously, and without question, publish claims of sexual assault or historical sexual abuse without demanding proof. Claims of sexual assaults and abuse are published daily with the tone that the allegation is true. For example, “there may be more victims” or “the suspect has been charged and the investigation is ongoing” or “it is unclear where the sexual assault took