Standing up for women’s rights
Amy Hamm is a Vancouver-area nurse and mother of two who has worked in healthcare for over 13 years without disciplinary incident. In September 2020, she co-sponsored a billboard in Vancouver that read, “I ♥ JK Rowling,” referencing the British author’s public support for women’s rights and female-only spaces such as crisis shelters, restrooms, and sports. Ms. Hamm told CBC, “Women’s rights are important, and we need to stand up for them, and it’s not transphobic to do so.”
But her public support sparked a backlash. A Vancouver city councillor publicly condemned the billboard on social media, prompting the advertising company to remove it after just 30 hours. Before it came down, it had already been defaced with paintballs. Not long after, a self-identified social justice activist filed a complaint with the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (College), accusing Ms. Hamm of being transphobic and demanding she be barred from working as a nurse. A second, anonymous complaint alleged Ms. Hamm had stoked hate speech against gender-diverse communities.
An investigation is launched
The College took the complaints seriously, launching an extensive investigation through its Inquiry Committee. The investigation resulted in a 332-page report reviewing Ms. Hamm’s public statements made between 2018 and 2021. The report included tweets, articles, podcast appearances, and videos where Ms. Hamm allegedly made “discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding transgender people,” some while identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator.
The report led to formal charges of professional misconduct and spreading disinformation. Despite the public nature of many of her statements, Ms. Hamm’s legal counsel maintained that she had always acted off-duty and that her speech was sincere, scientifically supportable, and socially valuable. They emphasized that professional governing bodies are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.
A long and complex hearing process
Starting in September 2022, Ms. Hamm faced a series of disciplinary hearings that would stretch over more than 20 days and into 2024. Sessions took place in September and October 2022; January, October, and November 2023; and March 2024. Her legal counsel, provided by the Justice Centre, called on multiple expert witnesses to testify in her defence. These included Dr. James Cantor, a clinical psychologist and researcher; Linda Blade, a former elite athlete and advocate for women’s sport; and Dr. Kathleen Stock, a British philosopher known for her views on sex and gender.
Throughout the hearings, Ms. Hamm’s legal team argued that her statements did not amount to professional misconduct, nor was there any evidence of harm or discrimination. They argued that criticizing gender identity theory is not equivalent to discrimination and that public discussion of biological sex is a legitimate and necessary part of a democratic society. Ms. Hamm, they said, had been targeted not for anything she had done as a nurse but for her beliefs, expressed on her own time.
Guilty of misconduct for four statements
On March 13, 2025, the Disciplinary Panel issued its ruling. Ms. Hamm was found guilty of unprofessional conduct in relation to four public items in which she had identified herself as a nurse—three articles and one podcast episode. In these, she stated that humans cannot change their sex and that biological realities should inform policies related to women’s safety and privacy.
The Panel concluded that these statements, tied to her nursing role, crossed a professional boundary. However, the Panel also found that her off-duty Twitter posts, where she had not identified herself as a nurse, did not constitute professional misconduct. It stated, “The Panel is not prepared to rely on the high-profile nature of the Respondent’s writings or her frequent references to her status as a nursing professional as to do so would effectively prevent her from making any public statements because they would automatically have a sufficient nexus to the profession of nursing.”
Amy Hamm appeals unprofessional conduct verdict to BC Supreme Court
Soon after the decision, Ms. Hamm filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Her legal team argues that the decision is legally flawed and that it sets a dangerous precedent for the free expression of regulated professionals.
In her appeal, Ms. Hamm will argue that belief systems about sex, gender, and gender identity should never be beyond review or criticism in a liberal society. It is not the job of a College to determine which belief systems are “off limits.”
Ms. Hamm, speaking to her reasons for appealing, remarked, “The Panel’s erroneous decision, which has no bearing on biological reality, cannot stand. Eventually, we will be left with only the truth, which always wins.”
Her lawyer, Lisa Bildy, noted, “In our view, the Panel made a number of legal and factual errors that make the decision unsound, and we look forward to arguing these points before the BC Supreme Court.”
Amy Hamm files complaints against Vancouver Coastal Health and BC College of Nurses and Midwives
Nurse Amy Hamm has filed two human rights complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, arguing that Vancouver Coastal Health and the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives discriminated against her on the basis of her political belief.
These applications are in response to both organizations targeting Ms. Hamm for her views on gender issues and women’s rights.
The first application to the BC Human Rights Tribunal has been filed against Vancouver Coast Health (VCH), arguing that discrimination based on her political beliefs precipitated Ms. Hamm’s termination for cause.
The second application has been filed against the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (College). On March 13, 2025, following a 23-day hearing that spanned 18 months, the College found Ms. Hamm guilty of unprofessional conduct based on online comments it described as “discriminatory and derogatory.”
“This will be an important case to watch,” said constitutional lawyer Ms. Lisa Bildy. “Unlike in the United Kingdom, Canadian tribunals have not wrestled with the question of whether gender critical views are protected beliefs,” she said.
“Canada should follow suit,” she added.
