Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

BC nurse faces $163k legal bill for co-sponsored a billboard reading, “I [heart] JK Rowling.”

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm, a single mother, faces a $163,000 legal bill and a three-month license suspension from the BCCNM over her public statements opposing LGBT ideology.

British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm is facing legal costs of $163,000 for her court battle over her statements publicly opposing LGBT ideology.

In a June 1 post on X, Amy Hamm announced that the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) is seeking $163,000 in legal costs after firing her without severance after she was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct” when she publicly voiced the immutable truth that sex is based on biology.

“The @BCnursemidwife spent 4+ years persecuting me for my political views,” Hamm wrote.

“Their latest move is to try to take $163,053 dollars from me, a single mother, to pay for their b******* persecution that I wanted nothing to do with,” she continued. “And suspend my license for 3 months.”

The court document, submitted on May 29, seeks to suspend Hamm’s license for three months in addition to forcing her to cover the $163,053 legal cost.

The next day, Hamm announced that she plans to fight the BCCNM’s submission, saying, “Unfortunately for them, I am not a weak person. I reject their lies, and their punishment, and will fight to see that they never see a penny of the $161,000 they want to take from me. I will fight to see that they are punished for what they’ve done.”

“Their latest move is nothing other than a plain admission of their evil hearts,” she declared.

“They’ve already defended male rapists in women’s prisons, and the end of women’s rights,” Hamm continued. “Of course they would ruin my career and reputation, and then attempt to bankrupt me as a kill shot.”

“I couldn’t be more proud to stand alongside all of the reality based men and women who see this ideology for what it is, and aren’t afraid to speak the truth,” Hamm concluded.

The move to force Hamm to cover legal costs comes after a March ruling from the BCCNM disciplinary panel which found that Hamm committed “unprofessional conduct” by publicly discussing the dangers of the LGBT agenda in three articles and a podcast appearance.

Furthermore, in late March, Hamm shared on social media that Vancouver Coastal Health fired her from her nursing position without severance after she was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct.”

Hamm found herself targeted by the BCCNM in 2020 when she co-sponsored a billboard reading, “I [heart] JK Rowling.” This sign was a nod to the famous British author’s public comments defending women’s private spaces from being used by gender-confused men.

The BCCNM accused Hamm of making “discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding [so-called] transgender people” while identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator.

According to the college, Hamm’s statements were “made across various online platforms, including but not limited to podcasts, videos, published writings, and social media” between July 2018 and March 2021.

Already, Hamm has revealed that she will take her case to the provincial Supreme Court.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canada To Revive Online Censorship Targeting “Harmful” Content, “Hate” Speech, and Deepfakes

Published on

logo

By

The skeleton of Bill C-36 has returned, dressed in new language but haunted by the same instincts

Stand against censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

A renewed censorship effort is taking shape in Canada as the federal government pushes ahead with a controversial bill targeting what it labels “harmful online content.”

Framed as a safeguard against exploitation and “hate,” the proposed legislation mirrors the widely criticized Bill C-36, which was abandoned after concerns about its vague language and expansive reach.

Bill C-36 would have established a powerful new Digital Safety Commission tasked with pressuring platforms to restrict user content.

If passed, the law would have compelled tech companies to remove flagged material such as intimate images shared without consent or child abuse content within 24 hours.

It also gives both the poster and complainant a chance to respond, but the final decision would ultimately fall to a state-backed regulator.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault attempted to justify the new push during a House of Commons committee meeting, stating the bill aims to remove “clearly harmful content” and is “designed to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

He added, “Online safety is certainly about protecting kids, but it’s obviously more than that.”

Beyond images and exploitation, the bill includes a broader mandate to police expression.

It calls for tougher Criminal Code penalties around so-called “hate propaganda,” including a life sentence for promoting genocide. It would create a new offense for “hate crimes” and let judges issue “peace bonds” to restrict someone’s freedom based on a prediction of possible future hate-based offenses.

On top of that, the proposal seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, allowing individuals to file complaints over online speech that meets a definition of “detestation or vilification,” as outlined by past Supreme Court decisions.

While speech that merely causes offense would not be caught under this language, opponents argue that the standard is far too subjective.

Guilbeault also emphasized that the government wants to criminalize the spread of non-consensual deepfake pornography and introduce stiffer penalties for sharing intimate content without permission.

“My colleague, Minister Fraser, is in the House of Commons speaking on his new bill, Bill C-9…We will be introducing measures to address hate speech, terrorist content, and the harmful distribution of intimate images,” he said.

Back in 2021, researchers at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab sharply condemned Ottawa’s censorship ambitions, blasting the heritage department’s approach as “aggressive,” “punitive,” and “disturbing.”

That censorship push ultimately stalled.

As the government strategizes its next move on reviving the shelved bill, or at least parts of it, Guilbeault defended the proposal by claiming it stays within Charter limits and only addresses narrowly defined harms.

He pointed to plans for new criminal laws targeting deepfakes and stricter penalties for non-consensual sharing of intimate images, aiming to ease public backlash over the legislation’s scope.

The extent of the new proposals is yet to be determined.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, join Reclaim The Net.

Fight censorship and surveillance. Reclaim your digital freedom.

Get news updates, features, and alternative tech explorations to defend your digital rights.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Digital ID UK: Starmer’s Expanding Surveillance State

Published on

logo

By

Britain’s digital ID push isn’t about streamlining paperwork. It’s about hardwiring state power into everyday life.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer came into office promising competence and calm after years of alleged political chaos.
What has followed is a government that treats civil liberties as disposable. Under his watch, police have leaned on broad public order powers to detain people over “offensive” tweets.
Critics argue that what counts as “offensive” now changes depending on the political mood, which means ordinary citizens find themselves guessing at what might trigger a knock on the door.
This is happening while mass facial recognition cameras are being installed in public places.
The pattern is clear: expand surveillance, narrow dissent, and then assure the public it is all in the name of safety and order.
Once every adult is forced to plug into a centralized identity wallet to work, rent, or access services, the state’s ability to monitor and sanction becomes unprecedented.
Starmer’s Labour government is dusting off one of its oldest obsessions: the dream of tagging every citizen like a parcel at the post office.
The latest revival comes in the form of a proposal to create mandatory digital ID cards, already nicknamed the “Brit Card,” for every working adult in the country.
The sales pitch sounds noble enough: crack down on illegal work, cut fraud, plug loopholes. The real effect would be to make ordinary life a permanent identity check.
Officials want job applications, rental agreements, and other basic transactions to be filtered through a government database, accessed through an app.
This, the people are told, will finally stop the shadow economy of dodgy employers. If that logic sounds familiar, it is because it is the same rationale Labour used for its last ID card scheme in the 2000s, a project that ended up in the political landfill in 2010 after enough voters realized what was happening.
“Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure,” Starmer said in his announcement. “And it will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly – rather than hunting around for an old utility bill.”
Campaigners and data rights groups are not buying the rebrand.
For Liberty’s Gracie Bradley cut straight to the point: the new version “is likely to be even more intrusive, insecure and discriminatory” than the one the country already threw out a decade ago.
That does not bode well for a government trying to convince citizens this time will be different.
Rebecca Vincent of Big Brother Watch spelled out where this all leads: “While Downing Street is scrambling to be seen as doing something about illegal immigration, we are sleepwalking into a dystopian nightmare where the entire population will be forced through myriad digital checkpoints to go about our everyday lives.”
Her warning does not require much imagination. Britain has a spotty track record on protecting sensitive data.
A poll commissioned by Big Brother Watch found that nearly two-thirds of the public already think the government cannot be trusted to protect their data. That is before any giant centralized ID system is rolled out.
Privacy advocates see this as a recipe for disaster, arguing that hackers and snooping officials alike will treat the system as a buffet of personal information.
Former Cabinet Minister David Davis, one of the longest-serving critics of ID schemes, described the risks as existential. “The systems involved are profoundly dangerous to the privacy and fundamental freedoms of the British people,” he said, noting the government has not explained how or if it would compensate citizens after the inevitable breach.
Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, issued a blunt forecast of where the “Brit Card” could lead.
She warned it could extend across public services, “creating a domestic mass surveillance infrastructure that will likely sprawl from citizenship to benefits, tax, health, possibly even internet data and more.”
In other words, once the pipes are laid, the water does not stop at employment checks.
Labour, of course, has been here before. The last time it rolled out ID cards, in 2009, the experiment barely survived a year before being junked by the incoming Conservative-led coalition as an “erosion of civil liberties.”
Labour is leaning heavily on polling that allegedly suggests up to 80 percent of the public backs digital right-to-work credentials.
Starmer himself recently adopted that framing. Earlier this month, he claimed digital IDs could “play an important part” in tackling black market employment.
He is pushing the case again at the Global Progress Action Summit in London, noting that “we all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did 20 years ago.”
What complicates the sales pitch is Labour’s own history of skepticism. Both Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper previously raised concerns about ID systems and their potential for government overreach.
That past caution has not stopped the new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, from becoming one of the loudest champions of the plan. She recently declared the system “essential” for enforcing migration and employment laws.
Labour-aligned think tanks are also providing cover. Labour Together released a report describing digital ID as a “new piece of civic infrastructure,” with the potential to become a routine part of life.
***
Tony Blair has reemerged as a central architect of Britain’s dystopian digital future.
Through his think tank, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the former Prime Minister is pushing the nationwide digital ID system, pitching it as the backbone of a tech-enabled state.
With Keir Starmer now in office, Blair’s vision is no longer an abstract policy paper. It is edging into reality with a new host.
For Blair, digital ID is not about convenience. It is about rewriting how government functions and can be what he calls a “weapon against populism.”
He has argued that a leaner, cheaper, more automated state is possible if citizens are willing to give up parts of their privacy. “My view is that people are actually prepared to trade quite a lot,” he once said, suggesting that resistance will dissolve once faster services are dangled in front of the public.
This project is not limited to streamlining bureaucracy. His version of efficiency is a frictionless state that also monitors, verifies, and restricts in ways that would have been inconceivable before the digital era.
With Starmer’s government now developing a digital ID wallet and considering a national rollout, Blair’s agenda is closer to official policy than ever. Marketed as modernization, the plan points toward a permanent restructuring of the relationship between citizen and state, locking personal identity into a centralized system that future governments will be able to expand at will.
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Trending

X