Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-03-14 01:52:34 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: CC06521B9E60A0EDF73B7C94488AB5B4F02B03C37C425F4A9D14F1D2CA847AD9
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