Oh Canada: Nurse Fights Anti-Free Speech Tribunal Over Transgender Views

For years, we have discussed (e.g., here, here, here, here, here) the crackdown on free speech in Canada, which followed European allies in criminalizing and regulating religious and political speech. The latest example involves Canadian nurse Amy Hamm, who had the temerity of putting up a billboard reading “I (heart) J.K. Rowling.” Despite recent changes in various countries regarding transgender athletes and other policy changes long advocated by Rowling, she remains persona non grata on the left — subjected to liberal blacklisting, book burning, threatened prosecution, cancel campaigns, and boycotts. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal targeted Hamm. These tribunals have long operated as speech regulators, prosecuting those with opposing viewpoints or values.

I discuss Canada’s criminalization of speech in my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” The Hamm case is a textbook example of how these publicly funded tribunals quickly became speech censorship boards in the name of protecting “human rights.” Free speech does not appear to be one of those human rights.

The tribunal opened an investigation of Hamm four years ago after she paid for the pro-Rowling billboard. After a year of investigation, the tribunal altered its allegations to claim that Hamm was sharing “medically inaccurate information” to “discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding transgender people.” She has faced almost two years of investigation and 23 days of hearings. She continues to appeal the case.

In the meantime, she was also targeted at work by activist group Care Not Cops, which publicly called for her firing. Vancouver Coastal Health then suspended Hamm in May 2024. The regional health authority claimed Hamm’s exercise of free speech about her beliefs caused “harm to individuals.” Accordingly, she could not continue as a nurse unless she was either silent about her views or mouthed the approved viewpoints of the tribunal or health authority.

What is particularly chilling is how the tribunal continued to change its allegations and orders, including seeking to halt appeals by claiming that it has yet to “deliberate on the appropriate penalty and costs.” It now claims that there are “four public items in which she had identified herself as a nurse – three articles and one podcast episode.”

The point of these campaigns and investigations is not just to punish figures for their opposing views but to create a chilling effect on anyone who might even contemplate supporting Rowling or voicing opposing views.