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

Alberta

Alberta bill would protect freedom of expression for doctors, nurses, other professionals

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Peterson’s law,’ named for Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, was introduced by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law that will set “clear expectations” for professional regulatory bodies to respect freedom of speech on social media and online for doctors, nurses, engineers, and other professionals.

The new law, named “Peterson’s law” after Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was canceled by his regulatory body, was introduced Thursday by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

“Professionals should never fear losing their license or career because of a social media post, an interview, or a personal opinion expressed on their own time,” Smith said in a press release sent to media and LifeSiteNews.

“Alberta’s government is restoring fairness and neutrality so regulators focus on competence and ethics, not policing beliefs. Every Albertan has the right to speak freely without ideological enforcement or intimidation, and this legislation makes that protection real.”

The law, known as Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, will “set clear expectations for professional regulatory bodies to ensure professionals’ right to free expression is protected.”

According to the government, the new law will “Limit professional regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for expressive off-duty conduct, except in specific circumstances such as threats of physical violence or a criminal conviction.”

It will also restrict mandatory training “unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Bill 13, once it becomes law, which is all but guaranteed as Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) holds a majority, will also “create principles of neutrality that prohibit professional regulatory bodies from assigning value, blame or different treatment to individuals based on personally held views or political beliefs.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Peterson has been embattled with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) after it  mandated he undergo social media “training” to keep his license following posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, criticizing Trudeau and LGBT activists.

Early this year, LifeSiteNews reported that the CPO had selected Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

The Alberta government directly referenced Peterson’s (who is from Alberta originally) plight with the CPO, noting “the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, demonstrate how regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal expression rather than professional competence.”

“Similar cases involving nurses, engineers and other professionals revealed a growing pattern: individuals facing investigations, penalties or compulsory ideological training for off-duty expressive conduct. These incidents became a catalyst, confirming the need for clear legislative boundaries that protect free expression while preserving professional standards.”

Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery said regarding Bill 13 that the new law makes that protection of professionals “real and holds professional regulatory bodies to a clear standard.”

Last year, Peterson formally announced his departure from Canada in favor of moving to the United States, saying his birth nation has become a “totalitarian hell hole.” 

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Move over Soviet Russia: UK Police Make 10,000 Arrests Over “Offensive” Online Speech

Published on

logo

By

In a nation where 90 percent of crimes go unsolved, the real emergency seems to be someone being offensive online.

Let’s get something straight. If you’re reading this from inside the United Kingdom and you’ve ever committed the heinous act of sarcasm on the internet, better close the curtains. The police might be on their way. Armed, possibly. With body cams. And a warrant to seize your copy of The Complete Fawlty Towers, just in case.
Last year, British police arrested nearly 10,000 people for saying things online that someone, somewhere, decided were “offensive.”
According to data pried out of police forces by the Daily Mail, that’s around 26 people a day. And yes, some of those probably were saying awful things. But many were not. Many were simply annoying. And in the UK now, being annoying online is grounds for a knock at the door.
The arrests were made under laws like the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, pieces of legislation drafted before TikTok existed, and when “going viral” still referred to the flu.
These laws were originally written to stop actual threats. Not to stop someone from tweeting something sarcastic about climate protesters.
But times have changed. Cumbria Constabulary, apparently keen to earn their badge in “Feelings Policing,” clocked in 217 arrests last year. That’s 42.5 arrests per 100,000 residents.
Meanwhile, Staffordshire managed only 21. What were they doing instead, catching burglars? How outdated.
Gwent Police weren’t far behind, either. The Welsh force made 204 arrests.
Toby Young of the Free Speech Union called the number “alarmingly high.” His assessment may be generous.
What’s truly Olympic-level absurd is the sheer inconsistency. If you’re a bit spicy with your language in Cumbria, you might be arrested before the kettle boils. In Staffordshire, you’d likely get nothing but a raised eyebrow and a politely worded leaflet.
David Spencer from Policy Exchange nailed it when he said, “The variance in approach by police forces suggests that how much freedom of speech we are allowed depends on where we live.”
A troubling sentence, because once you need a zipcode to know what jokes are legal, the country starts to resemble something more out of Kafka.
Polling suggests only 7 percent of people think online “hate speech” should be a police priority. Seven percent! Yet Britain’s police are allocating significant resources to patrol the pixelated badlands of X and Facebook while 90 percent of actual crimes went unsolved last year.
So, to recap: Your house gets burgled? Fill out a form and cross your fingers. Criticize the government’s foreign policy on Facebook? Patrol car, cuffs, and possible prison time.
It doesn’t help that the laws in question use terms like “grossly offensive” and “insulting” without defining them. As Lord Frost pointed out in the House of Lords: “’Grossly offensive’, ‘abusive’, ‘insulting’ and ‘false’ – says who?” Exactly. It’s like trying to enforce a speed limit based on whether the officer feels you were driving too smugly.
Here’s the cherry on the dystopian sundae: According to Free Speech Union’s Toby Young, Russia arrested 3,253 people last year for online speech. Britain arrested four times that. That’s embarrassing and the sort of international statistic that ought to appear in Amnesty International reports.
Continue Reading

Trending

X