VANCOUVER, BC: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is disappointed that the Disciplinary Panel of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives, in a decision released today, has found nurse Amy Hamm guilty of professional misconduct for statements made about sexuality and gender in various articles. This decision will negatively impact the freedom of expression of regulated professionals in British Columbia and across Canada.
The panel found professional misconduct in relation to four items where Ms. Hamm expressly identified herself as a nurse while making “discriminatory and derogatory” comments. The Panel found that describing herself as a nurse in the biography attached to three articles she had written, and in one podcast, was enough to create a connection to her profession which brought her under the purview of the regulator.
However, with respect to Ms. Hamm’s extensive off-duty Twitter posts, where she did not identify herself as a nurse in her bio, the Panel did not make a finding of professional misconduct, stating, “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 (para 190).”
In September 2020, Amy Hamm, a Vancouver-area nurse, co-sponsored a billboard that read, “I ♥ JK Rowling,” referring to the British author’s public defence of women’s right to female-only spaces, such as prisons and crisis centres, restrooms and changerooms, and sporting events.
A Vancouver city councillor publicly condemned the billboard on social media, prompting the advertising company, Pattison Billboards, to quickly remove it. The sign was up for just 30 hours, but it had already been defaced with paint balls by the time it was taken down.
A self-proclaimed “social justice activist” complained to the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) that Ms. Hamm was transphobic and, therefore, unfit to be a nurse. The complaint called for Ms. Hamm to be barred from her current and all future nursing positions. A second, anonymous complaint against Ms. Hamm accused her of “promoting and stoking hate speech towards trans and gender-diverse communities.”
Thus began Ms. Hamm’s more than four-year ordeal with the BCCNM. The matter was referred to the College’s Inquiry Committee for further investigation, which resulted in a 332-page report on Ms. Hamm’s tweets, articles, and other online activities. The report led to a citation (or charge) against Ms. Hamm that her allegedly “discriminatory and derogatory statements” constituted professional misconduct. There followed more than 20 days of disciplinary hearings starting in September 2022 and ending in March 2024.
(The BCCNM’s closing arguments can be read here. Amy Hamm’s closing arguments can be read here. The BCCNM’s reply can be read here.)
Throughout the hearings, Ms. Hamm’s legal counsel, provided by the Justice Centre, argued that there is no evidence of Ms. Hamm engaging in unprofessional misconduct or breaching any standards or bylaws. They argued that her speech was reasonable, sincere, socially valuable, and scientifically supportable. They argued that there is no evidence of “discrimination” or “harm” resulting from her speech, and, most importantly, that censoring Ms. Hamm’s speech violates her freedom of expression – protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As government entities, professional regulatory bodies like the BC College of Nurses and Midwives are subject to the Charter.
Lawyer Lisa Bildy stated, “We are reviewing the 115-page decision to determine whether an appeal is warranted. Obviously, we are disappointed that any of Ms. Hamm’s off-duty gender critical advocacy was found to be within the purview of her regulator; however, we are pleased that the vast majority of Ms. Hamm’s commentary was found not to have a sufficient nexus to her profession to attract a disciplinary finding.”
