B.C. nurse committed professional misconduct with transgender commentary, hearing rules

A B.C. nurse who sponsored a pro-J.K. Rowling sign five years ago and posted “discriminatory and/or derogatory statements” about transgender people while identifying herself as a member of the medical profession has been found to have committed professional misconduct.

In a ruling posted online Thursday, a disciplinary hearing of the B.C. College of Nurses and Midwives found that Amy Eileen Hamm made statements it called “untruthful and unfair as they challenge the existence of transgender women, argue for less constitutional protection for transgender women, and are designed, in part, to elicit fear, contempt and outrage against members of the transgender community.”

In 2020, Hamm commissioned an “I (heart) J.K.Rowling” billboard in Vancouver that drew instant rebuke. It was removed shortly after. The sign was similar to one in Scotland in support of Rowling, at a time when the U.K. author was embroiled in controversy over her views against allowing people to self-identify their gender, and her conviction that it posed a threat to non-transgender women and children.

The nurses’ college was asked to investigate because Hamm made it clear in several social media posts that she was a nurse as she made comments that complainants described as transphobic.

“Although the statements did not directly concern health or nursing services, the respondent identified herself as a nurse or nurse educator in making them,” said the college.

While Hamm argued it was a matter of freedom of speech and fair political comment, the members of the hearing panel disagreed — though they refused to discipline her for statements she made when she didn’t refer to her job.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which provided legal support for Hamm, said the ruling was disappointing.

“This decision will negatively impact the freedom of expression of regulated professionals in British Columbia and across Canada,” it said in a statement.

Hamm’s lawyers argued her speech “was reasonable, sincere, socially valuable and scientifically supportable,” the centre said, and there was no evidence of “discrimination” or “harm” resulting from it.

“We are reviewing the 115-page decision to determine whether an appeal is warranted,” lawyer Lisa Bildy said in the statement.

“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 it added the centre was pleased the vast majority of her commentary was found to not be connected to her profession.

Barring a successful appeal, a hearing will be ordered at which Hamm will find out her penalty.

jruttle@postmedia.com