Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

BC College of Nurses and Midwives orders Amy Hamm to pay $93,639.80 and suspends her license for one month

Published

3 minute read

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the disciplinary panel of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (College) has suspended Amy Hamm’s nursing license for one month, starting when she returns to nursing, and has ordered her to pay $93,639.80 in legal costs for her statements defending the right of women to access female-only spaces.

Ms. Hamm had worked in healthcare for over 13 years and had been promoted to be a nurse educator.

In 2020, she co-sponsored a Vancouver billboard that read, “I ♥ JK Rowling,” referencing the author’s support for women’s rights and the right of women to access female-only spaces, such as washrooms, crisis centres, sporting events, and prisons.

Following complaints from activists and a Vancouver city councillor, the billboard was removed, and two formal complaints were filed with the College accusing Ms. Hamm of transphobia and hate speech.

The College launched an investigation that led to a 332-page report examining Ms. Hamm’s public statements between 2018 and 2021, including tweets, articles, and podcasts.

The College’s Inquiry Committee argued that Ms. Hamm had made discriminatory and derogatory comments about transgender people while identifying as a nurse. After 22 days of hearings spanning a year and a half, the College’s disciplinary panel ruled that four of her statements amounted to unprofessional conduct.

Ms. Hamm has already appealed the College’s finding of unprofessional conduct to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. 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. We are now considering whether to appeal the penalty decision as well.”

“This decision effectively penalizes a nurse for expressing mainstream views aligned with science and common sense,” continued Ms. Bildy. “The Panel’s ruling imposes a chilling effect on free expression for all regulated professionals.”

Ms. Hamm said, “The College has chosen to punish me for statements that are not hateful, but truthful. I’m appealing because biological reality matters, and so does freedom of expression. I want to express my thanks to the thousands of Canadians who continue to fund my legal case through donations to the Justice Centre.”

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

Artificial Intelligence

Anti-DEI advocate Robby Starbuck reaches settlement with Meta over AI defamation

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck has settled his lawsuit against Meta over claims its AI chatbot defamed him, falsely linking him to Jan. 6 and other discredited narratives. As part of the deal, he’ll advise Meta on reducing political bias and misinformation in its AI models.

Key Details:

  • Starbuck sued Meta in April after its AI chatbot allegedly labeled him a “White nationalist” who was arrested on Jan. 6 and suggested he should lose custody of his children.
  • As part of the settlement, Starbuck will work with Meta’s Product Policy team to improve AI fairness and accuracy, especially on political and ideological topics.
  • The deal follows Meta’s January decision under President Donald Trump’s administration to scrap its DEI policies, part of broader efforts to address concerns about anti-conservative bias.

Diving Deeper:

The dispute began in August 2024 when an X user surfaced several examples of Meta’s AI chatbot spreading damaging misinformation about Robby Starbuck. Among the claims: that he participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, was connected to QAnon, and opposed vaccines. Starbuck’s own investigation uncovered more falsehoods, leading him to pursue legal action after attempts to resolve the matter privately with Meta failed.

Filed in Delaware Superior Court, the lawsuit alleged defamation and reputational harm, noting the AI went so far as to recommend he lose custody of his children on grounds that he was a “danger” to them. Starbuck — known for his activism against DEI initiatives — framed the case as a broader warning about the dangers of political bias embedded in artificial intelligence systems.

Under the settlement, Starbuck will now have a formal role advising Meta’s Product Policy team, a move both sides say will strengthen the accuracy of Meta AI and help curb ideological slants. “I’m extraordinarily pleased with how Meta and I resolved this issue,” Starbuck told Fox News Digital. “Resolving this is going to result in big wins that I believe will set an example for ethical AI across the industry.”

Meta has faced similar bias accusations as other AI developers. Google’s Gemini, for example, was criticized for portraying Memorial Day as controversial and producing racially inaccurate historical images. OpenAI’s ChatGPT was previously caught refusing to praise Donald Trump while readily praising Kamala Harris or Joe Biden — an imbalance the company later pledged to address.

Since President Trump’s return to the White House, Meta has taken steps to address perceived anti-conservative leanings. In January, it ended DEI programs and elevated Joel Kaplan, a former Republican political strategist, as chief global affairs officer. Kaplan argued the move would ensure the company recruits “the most talented people” without ideological filters.

Starbuck said he intends to use his new position to protect Americans of all political affiliations from AI bias but emphasized that ensuring fairness for conservatives will remain his top priority. “I think a tech leader like Meta working with me is a critically important step to producing a product that’s fair to everyone,” he said. “What we do to improve AI training could become an industry standard.”

Continue Reading

Banks

New executive order takes aim at debanking

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Among the executive orders President Donald Trump signed Thursday was one instructing federal banking regulators to shed language from their guidance documents that the administration believes can lead to the debanking of people or institutions for political reasons.

“It is the policy of the United States that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views, and to ensure that politicised or unlawful debanking is not used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or political views,” the order reads.

Debanking individuals or institutions on the basis of political and personal views has become more visible in the U.S. since 2020, following similar reported trends in the U.K. and Europe where organizations like BankTrack and Bankwatch have monitored and reported on banks’ clients’ compliance with certain climate and human rights initiatives for decades.

Debanking occurs when a financial institution either closes or restricts an account or refuses to provide services to a potential client. Perhaps the most well-known, large-scale example occurred in 2022, when the Canadian government seized and froze the bank accounts of some participating in the Freedom Convoy, a convoy of thousands of truckers across Canada protesting the country’s vaccine mandates.

Financial institutions can and have also debanked clients independently of government involvement or direction. The order, however, focuses on federal reforms to prevent the government from encouraging or inciting debanking, as it claims it did in Operation Choke Point. The operation, which took place under the Obama administration, designated certain industries as high-risk for fraud and money laundering.

Republicans say the administration used it to target individuals, businesses and industries it opposed politically – like the gun industry – while Democrats say it was simply aimed at protecting consumers.

The Small Business Administration and other federal banking regulators are to “remove the use of reputation risk or equivalent concepts” from documents they use to “regulate or examine” financial institutions to avoid encouraging the debanking of clients for political or “unlawful” reasons.

The order also directs the SBA to ensure the reinstatement of clients’ accounts at financial institutions that debanked them for such reasons.

Thirty-two members of the State Financial Officers Foundation from 24 states signed onto a joint statement commending the executive order.

“President Trump’s executive action directly confronts this abuse of regulatory authority,” they said. “By reaffirming that banks must evaluate customers based on objective financial criteria, not political or religious views, his leadership marks a crucial step toward restoring viewpoint neutrality and putting an end to unlawful discrimination in our financial sector.”

Financial institutions can debank clients if those clients are found to be engaged in illegal activity.

Continue Reading

Trending

X