I am more sensitive than most people to words like "burden of proof".
Because I am truly offended by the fact that "anyone who criticizes my column says what they like without even breaking a sweat.
Anyone who wants to reject my argument has an obligation to construct a counterargument with the same level of effort as I do -- this is the burden of proof.
This burden of proof principle is too harsh on the side of victims of sexual crimes, for example.
Nevertheless, I believe that the principle of burden of proof is absolute.
-----
Recently, there seems to be a dispute between Sanae Takaichi, Minister of Economic Security Affairs, and Hiroyuki Konishi, a member of the House of Councilors of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, regarding this "burden of proof".
At first, I thought that the administrative documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications were like the minutes of a meeting in a company.
In the company where I work, the minutes are checked by all parties involved after they are prepared.
We don't want anyone to say later, 'That's not true.
However, following up on this case, it appears that the process for creating "administrative documents of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications" is apparently a different process than that of these "minutes".
That is why I am seriously confused as to 'which side has the burden of proof' in this case.
If anyone knows any columns or other articles that interpret this case completely without subjectivity (emotions, etc.) and only with legal theory, please introduce them to us.
-----
For me, the materials released by the government must assume 'absolute objectivity' or I will be in trouble.
("Administrative text" may be different from "official text". Please let us know about this area too)
When I write my columns, I rely on reports published by the administration for quite a few parts.
If the credibility of this official document is shaken, my column's credibility will be in tatters as a result of the collateral damage.