Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-03-14 00:32:28 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 197DAB728B480BD70A9B4C789E651D0CA0C67F170023BD3B28B5DFEAB6351029
Participant Details
Original Note:
The ruling was about whether or not the phrase “a woman” was a generalization in the ruling or not. The court uses the word woman 27 times in the decision. Thea insinuation that the court was saying the judge should have used "person with a vagina" instead is fabricated. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2024/2024scc7/2024scc7.html
All Note Details