Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-03-14 15:51:05 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: E9FF2A1C24F12E393F0AFB25E1B64D84F4B18C0E5B44E6AA59383DE8A1757140
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