Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-03-13 23:11:46 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 3BE6E3286B2D3965870F36A1512E8D229734B1217BE516BCE9B8E456142025EC
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