A Case That Divides Public Opinion
In British Columbia, the suspension of nurse Amy Hamm has ignited a heated transgender rights debate. Hamm received a one-month suspension and nearly $94,000 in fines after a disciplinary panel ruled she made discriminatory remarks online. The B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives said her comments, posted between 2018 and 2021, spread fear and contempt toward transgender people.
Disciplinary Action and Appeal
The panel ruled in March that Hamm committed professional misconduct. Alongside the suspension, she must cover the college’s costs within two years. Hamm has since filed an appeal in B.C. Supreme Court, which pauses the penalties until the legal process concludes.
Defense From Justice Centre and Legal Counsel
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms defended Hamm, claiming she was punished for supporting women’s access to female-only spaces. Hamm’s lawyer, Lisa Bildy, argued the panel made “legal and factual errors” in its findings. According to Bildy, the ruling penalizes Hamm for views that align with science and mainstream perspectives.
Hamm’s Statement on Freedom of Expression
Hamm rejected claims of hate speech, insisting her stance focuses on biological reality and freedom of expression. In her words, “biological reality matters, and so does freedom of expression.” With more than 13 years of experience and a promotion to nurse educator, Hamm says she feels silenced for holding views she considers reasonable.
College Emphasizes Zero Tolerance for Discrimination
The B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives emphasized its duty to protect the public. In its statement, the college stressed that nurses and midwives hold positions of trust and must uphold non-discriminatory practices. It called the ruling “an important statement against discrimination,” reinforcing its mandate to keep healthcare inclusive and equitable.
Wider Implications and Human Rights Complaints
The decision arrives just weeks after the Justice Centre filed complaints with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. The case has since expanded beyond professional discipline into a broader legal and social debate about balancing professional responsibility with personal freedom of speech.
Stay tuned to Maple Wire for the latest updates on this ongoing case.
