Vancouver, BC: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the virtual disciplinary hearing brought by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) against Vancouver area nurse Amy Hamm is set to continue today for four additional days.
An investigation was launched by the BCCNM in November, 2020, in response to two public complaints about Ms. Hamm’s ‘gender critical’ opinions and comments. This followed her involvement with an “I ♥ JK Rowling” billboard display in Vancouver, endorsing Ms. Rowling’s view that women and girls deserve their own safe bathrooms where biological males may not enter. There have been dozens if not hundreds of positive messages in support of Ms. Hamm submitted to the BCCNM since the hearing was announced.
In Ms. Hamm’s case, the BCCNM Inquiry Committee referred the matter to a Disciplinary Panel. The first part of the hearing was held virtually between September 21-23 with the second phase running from October 24-27. A further segment of the hearing will now take place from January 10-13, 2023.
The charge against Ms. Hamm reads: “Between approximately July 2018 and March 2021, you made discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding transgender people, while identifying yourself as a nurse or nurse educator. These statements were made across various online platforms, including but not limited to, podcasts, videos, published writings and social media.”
The Justice Centre is engaged in defending the constitutional rights of professionals across Canada where, in its view, regulatory bodies across Canada are increasingly policing the speech of professionals with threats of disciplinary action.
“This case involves worldviews and rights that have come into conflict, and whether an off-duty nurse is allowed to engage in debate about such a politically charged matter in the public square,” says lawyer Lisa Bildy, co-counsel for Ms. Hamm. “Of course, conflicts are best solved by discussion and debate, not censorship and punishment. The College is tasked with keeping patients safe and regulating the profession in the public interest. But we should be concerned when the regulatory process becomes a tool for use by activists to complain about professionals whose opinions they wish to punish,” Ms. Bildy adds.
