Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-03-13 17:44:26 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 788EACD08F1A8271CB427BF4F5F767B56998B5824FAF4106EC9F4FE7CBDE10EA
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