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 Canadian justice system is currently designed to convict and uphold convictions of sexual assault at any level. For actual violent incidents of rape, sodomy or incest this is a good thing as people should be punished. But when it's a malicious claim that's not true, or a claim based on false memory it becomes very difficult for a man to defend himself in the absence of evidence such as DNA, doctor reports, or alibi. As we learned from my previous post Prevalence of Sexual Assault in Canada: Does it Justify Rape Culture Hysteria? the majority of sexual assault cases in our courts are of a Level 1 nature - the least violent and even non-physical in some cases.
"Clary Jaxon" takes a critical look at how current social theories and the efforts to instill them compare to the reality of actual social conditions. With a focus on Canadian issues. Check out the STW YouTube channel.