Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-03-14 22:18:57 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: EF406436F934E1753E37F19760A80A45CCC953FB3EA611ADCF6C25CEB274FABE
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