Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-03-13 17:13:48 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 1F5D56372B4FD33A7E5EEB8C5E2E3BDA7BB4BE1FC68995D710C63ECFE98C8EF8
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