Amy Hamm supports women and female-only spaces
Amy Hamm is a Vancouver-area nurse and mother of two. In September 2020, she co-sponsored a billboard that read, “I ♥ JK Rowling,” referring to the British author’s public defence of women’s rights and female-only spaces, such as prisons and crisis centres, restrooms and changerooms, and sporting events. Ms. Hamm told the CBC, “Women’s rights are important, and we need to stand up for them, and it’s not transphobic to do so.”
Some people in Vancouver disagreed and it did not take long for a city councillor to publicly condemn the billboard on X (formerly Twitter), prompting the advertising company to quickly remove it. Despite being up for a mere 30 hours, opponents had already defaced it. A self-proclaimed “social justice activist” complained to the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives that Ms. Hamm was transphobic and that she was unsuited to a career as 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.”
Amy Hamm hearing begins
The BC College of Nurses and Midwives took the complaints seriously. 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 stated, “Between approximately July 2018 and March 2021, you [Ms. Hamm] 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.” She was charged with unprofessional conduct and spreading disinformation, among other things.
The investigation resulted in more than 20 days of disciplinary hearings starting in 2022:
- September 21-23, 2022
- October 24-27, 2022
- January 10-13, 2023
- October 23-25, 2023
- October 31 to November 3, 2023
- November 6-8, 2024
- March 18-19, 2024
In the October and November hearings, Ms. Hamm’s legal counsel called on several expert witnesses from various backgrounds, including Dr. James Cantor, clinical psychologist and internationally recognized researcher specializing in human sexuality and unusual sexual interest; Linda Blade, former elite heptathlete, coach, credentialed kinesiologist, and champion of women’s sport; and Dr. Kathleen Stock, British philosopher and former professor at the University of Sussex.
Throughout the hearings, Ms. Hamm’s legal counsel has 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.
Professional governing bodies like the BC College of Nurses and Midwives are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Justice Centre defends the right of health professionals to express their opinions in the public sphere, and advocates that the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression is essential for all Canadians. Pursuing disciplinary action against a nurse for their opinions or commentary on matters of public interest amounts to censorship and is something that should not have been initiated by the College.
Freedom of expression at risk
The Justice Centre and Ms. Hamm are concerned that some activists are weaponizing professional regulatory bodies to intimidate opponents and punish controversial opinions, forcing professionals to undergo stressful and often lengthy disciplinary proceedings. It is worth noting that regulatory bodies are vulnerable to this abuse and that there has been a rise in politically motivated complaints against Canadian professionals who express opinions contrary to protected narratives.
Will the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives affirm the freedom of expression of all nurses? Or will the College stifle expression to protect certain views about biological sex categories? We are currently awaiting a decision from the College.
“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,” stated 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.”
Free speech of regulated professionals harmed after nurse Amy Hamm found guilty of professional misconduct
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.”
Nurse Amy Hamm appeals unprofessional conduct verdict to BC Supreme Court
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that nurse Amy Hamm is appealing the decision of the Disciplinary Panel of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives to convict her of unprofessional conduct for statements she made about sex and gender. Her appeal will be heard before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
Ms. Hamm and her legal team are concerned that her conviction was not only incorrect but that it will have a corrosive effect on the ability of regulated professionals to share their views on matters of public significance.
Ms. Hamm has worked as a registered nurse with Vancouver Coastal Health for the past 13 years. She had no prior record of disciplinary issues of any kind, even while working with transgender patients.
With a background in journalism, Ms. Hamm became a prolific advocate for the right of women to access female-only spaces and to be safe from male violence.
In September 2020, she 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 councilor publicly condemned the billboard on social media, prompting the advertising company 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 (College) 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.”
The College’s Inquiry Committee launched an investigation, peering into not only her involvement with the billboard but also all of her social media activity, articles, and podcast appearances. The Inquiry Committee compiled a report of over 300 pages on her public commentary.
On March 13, 2025, after more than 20 days of disciplinary hearings stretching from 2022 to 2024, the Disciplinary Panel of the College ruled that Amy Hamm was guilty of unprofessional conduct for her off-duty statements.
The decision zeroed in on three articles and one podcast episode in which Ms. Hamm, while identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator, stated that there are only two sexes, that humans cannot change their sex, and that these facts ought to inform public policies affecting the safety and privacy of females.
The Disciplinary Panel preferred the evidence of the College’s expert that “sex is multidimensional” and found that it was “discriminatory and derogatory [for Ms. Hamm] to suggest that transgender women should not be in the same spaces as cisgender women.”
The Disciplinary Panel even stated that Ms. Hamm’s comments were a form of “discriminatory erasure” denying the very existence of transgender people.
Her legal team disagrees.
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.”
“Regulated professionals, speaking in their off-duty time (whether their occupation is known or not), should not be prohibited from gender critical advocacy or otherwise speaking about hot topics of the day in the public square,” Ms. Bildy continued. “We should be able to hear and consider all opinions, as we grapple with difficult issues in society, but decisions like this cast a chill on the speech of professionals and deter their involvement.”
