WATCH: Amy Hamm on advocating for sex-based rights as a nurse in Canada
The verdict is in.
After a four-year battle with the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives, nurse Amy Hamm has been found guilty of 'professional misconduct.'
It started when Hamm's advocacy for sex-based rights (as opposed to gender-based rights) — including her co-commissioning of a billboard that read, 'I love JK Rowling,' and her suggestion that transgender women should not be in the same formerly private spaces and leagues as biological women — led to public complaints and an investigation, which determined that doing so was discriminatory, derogatory and undermined trust in the nursing profession.
As a nurse, Hamm has never once received a patient complaint. The entire case against her was based solely on her conduct outside of work.
Hamm's case highlights the legal tensions that exist between professional associations, women's rights and the more recent protections in the Canadian Human Rights Act for 'gender identity or expression.'
But is Amy Hamm a bad nurse for voicing her concerns?
B.C. nurse committed professional misconduct with transgender commentary, hearing rules
J.K. Rowling saved western civilization
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Who's responsible for online harms? Responsibility for troubled file floats between ministers
OTTAWA — As ministers settle into their new roles, discussions are underway about who is best suited to steer the government's efforts to legislate against online harms, cabinet minister Steven Guilbeault said on Tuesday. Questions have arisen about which minister and department would be best suited to handle the complicated issue after the Liberals' proposed Online Harms Act died in Parliament when Prime Minister Mark Carney triggered a federal election in March. 'It's a good question,' said Guilbeault, who oversees the Canadian Heritage department, told reporters on his way into the Liberals' weekly cabinet meeting. 'We're having conversations to see what would be the most appropriate department to bring this forward.' Canadian Heritage had been the first department to develop and later introduce the Liberals' initial plan to combat the harms Canadian users experience online. That proposal, which was released in 2021, was met with widespread backlash over concerns about the requirement for social media companies to remove content within 24 hours after receiving a complaint. Experts had warned the provision was overly broad and risked infringing on free expression, given that companies could remove legal content. The Liberals then struck an advisory group and got to work on figuring out a Plan B. Responsibility for the bill also shifted from Canadian Heritage to the Justice Department. In early 2024, former justice minister Arif Vriani introduced Bill C-63, which proposed to create a new digital safety regulator that would be tasked with ensuring social media giants took steps to reduce users' access to content, such as child sex abuse images and incite extremism and violence. That bill was also met with backlash over its proposal to introduce stiffer sentences for hate-related offences and reintroduce a controversial section to the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow people to bring forward complaints of hate speech, which civil liberties advocates and Parliamentarians said risked violating free speech. Virani spent months defending the need for the tougher Criminal Code measures to be included in the online safety bill, but last December announced the government was prepared to split the bill to help get it passed. In January, former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation and that Parliament would be suspended until March. Emily Laidlaw, a Canada Research Chair in cybersecurity law at the University of Calgary, who sat on the government's expert advisory group, said it was a mistake for the government to have combined different provisions into the same legislation and that by the time it announced the legislation would be split, 'it was too late.' 'What I'm hoping is, when they reintroduce it, they have very firmly the platform regulation law,' she says. Should the Liberals want to propose changes to the Criminal Code or the Canadian Human Rights Act, that should be separate, she said. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told reporters on Tuesday that the government was going to look at different measures when it comes to protecting children online, but would have more to say in the months ahead. One new factor in how the Liberals may decide to proceed is the fact that Carney named to his cabinet the country's first minister responsible for artificial intelligence and digital innovation, a position currently held by former broadcaster Evan Solomon, who was elected in late April's general election. The Liberals in their last bill listed AI-generated sexualized 'deepfakes' as one of the harms companies would have to take steps to tackle. Asked whether online harms would fall under his mandate, Solomon told reporters on Tuesday that it was 'up for debate.' 'But probably yeah.' Laidlaw said while she does not believe the government needs to start a new round of consultations, it ought to take a second look at the scope of harms it is seeking to tackle. For example, she suggested there was room to include the issue of identity fraud. 'I actually think it should be broadened to include some of the ways that AI can be used to facilitate harm, so it might not just be the typical social media on Instagram.' National Post staylor@ Hate crime laws to be split from Liberals' online harms bill after blowback PBO: Creating proposed online harms regulators estimated to cost $200M Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Yahoo
A Jovial Jon Hamm Toasts Lorne Michaels at Peabody Awards
A Jovial Jon Hamm Toasts Lorne Michaels at Peabody Awards originally appeared on L.A. Mag. "Yay, me!" said Jon Hamm when he stepped onto the Beverly Wilshire stage in a lighthearted mood at the 85th Peabody Awards on Sunday, June 1."Wait ... Jeez, guys. Alright, here's the deal," he continued. "No one knows this. I'm telling you for the first time. I will never, ever forget the first time I stepped into Studio 8H [at 30 Rockefeller Plaza]. It's the trippiest, weirdest experience you've ever had.""Hosting Saturday Night Live ... before then, I was known as the guy drinking whiskey in a suit. AND I was on Mad Men. Hold for laugh!" he said. "The first table read, this is what happened: I kept expecting Lorne [Michaels] to say, 'You know what? We changed our minds.' I'm not going to do Lorne's voice — everyone's heard it." (Hamm received more laughs.) Hamm continued: "He said, 'Don't worry, if this doesn't work, everyone will blame us.' And that is so Lorne: comforting and totally terrifying all at the same time! But under his leadership, SNL has launched the careers of comedy giants: Belushi, Radner, Murphy, Ferrell, Fey, Wiig, Poehler, Armisen, Molly Shannon, everybody, so many more. SNL gave them a home, and gave us them.""And if you've ever found yourself quoting a line like, 'Wasn't that special?' you've felt the impact, right?" Hamm posed. "The Church Lady sketches were hilarious, but they also revealed to us how we police each other's behavior under the guise of morality. And isn't that right now?" A woman from the crowd called out, "wooh!" Not missing a beat, Hamm pointed into the audience and quipped, "My mom's here!" Then he shook his head and hand. "My mom's dead," he retracted, laughing to himself. "I wish had comedy skills ... I don't!" "Anyway, that has always been the secret sauce of SNL: holding up a mirror and reflecting America's culture to us. Politics, contradictions, all of it, right back at you," Hamm concluded. "Because, yes, SNL is wigs and cue cards and gigs and gags, but it's always something that dares to confront who we really are. And for doing that so well, live, at 11:30 p.m. every Saturday for five decades, this institution honors the institution that is Saturday Night Live!" After a clip, creator and producer of SNL Lorne Michaels took the stage — along with seminal cast members Amy Poehler, Fred Armisen and Molly Shannon — to accept the Peabody Institutional Award. "I don't really deserve this," Michaels began. "But in a way I do.""During SNL 50 this year, all of those people coming back from the first season on, all being in one room and performing and applauding, I think was one of the most moving experiences of my life," Michaels said. "And I'm not planning a 60th," he continued, "but I think that getting to do what I get to do, is everything that makes me happy ... it also makes me angry.""The thing that I want to say about the Peabody — because I have won this before," Michaels added, to laughs. "Is that, when you come to the Peabodys and you walk in, unlike other awards shows, you know you're in the right room. And it's really an honor to be here, so thank you." The winners of the 85th Peabody Awards — which moved to Los Angeles' Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel, last year — were pre-announced. See full winners list here. They represented the most captivating and inspiring stories released in broadcasting and streaming media during 2024, and included Andrea Mitchell (Peabody Career Achievement Award honoree), Hiroyuki Sanada (Shōgun), Kerry Washington (Daughters) and Richard Gadd (Baby Reindeer). Other presenters included Anna Kendrick, Kerry Washington, Jurnee Smollett, Linda Perry, Mandy Moore, Marissa Bode, Nava Mau, Randall Park, Stephen Merchant, Uzo Aduba, Van Jones, Jacob Soboroff, Yvonne Orji, and Roy Wood Jr. returned to host the event. This story was originally reported by L.A. Mag on Jun 2, 2025, where it first appeared.
Forbes
01-06-2025
- Forbes
How One Farmer's Climate Lawsuit Could Lead To A Win For The Planet
17 March 2025, North Rhine-Westphalia, Hamm: Peruvian mountain farmer and mountain guide Saul ... More Luciano Lliuya (r) arrives at the Higher Regional Court for the hearing of his climate lawsuit against energy company RWE and talks to journalists. Geoscientists and structural engineers appointed by the court are to present their expert opinions. The issue at stake is the danger posed to the plaintiff's house in South America by a tidal wave or mudslide. The plaintiff accuses the German company of being partly responsible for climate change due to the CO2 emissions it produces. Photo: Rolf Vennenbernd/dpa (Photo by Rolf Vennenbernd/picture alliance via Getty Images) A farmer's climate lawsuit is a win for the planet. Recently, a German court quietly ended a landmark legal battle that had spanned nearly a decade. In Lliuya v. RWE, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, sued Germany's largest utility company, RWE, over its historic carbon emissions and the resulting impact on his hometown of Huaraz. Though the Higher Regional Court of Hamm ruled against Lliuya, stating that he had not sufficiently demonstrated imminent danger or direct causation, the case represents something far more significant than a legal loss. It marks another pivotal moment in the evolving global discourse on climate accountability, climate justice, and how courts will address the issue of liability in an era of planetary risk. Lliuya first went to court in 2015. He claimed that glacial melt driven by global warming had swollen a lake above his town, threatening a catastrophic flood. He asked RWE, a company responsible for roughly 0.47% of global historical emissions, to pay for protective measures proportional to its emissions. It was a novel request, but one that resonated with growing legal and ethical arguments about polluters' responsibilities to communities on the frontlines of climate change. HUARAZ, PERU - MAY 23: Saul Luciano Lliuya (41), Peruvian farmer and mountain guide who filed a ... More lawsuit against the German electricity consortium RWE, visits the lake Palcacocha in Huaraz, Peru on May 23, 2022. (Photo by Angela Ponce for The Washington Post via Getty Images) In many ways, this case echoed others around the world, including youth-led lawsuits like Held v. Montana. In that case, a state court ruled that Montana had violated young residents' constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by promoting fossil fuel development. While Lliuya v. RWE did not secure a similar victory, it represents a similar trend of individuals and communities using the legal system to seek remedy and accountability in the face of government inaction and corporate pollution. Climate litigation of this kind presents unique legal challenges. How do courts trace global emissions back to individual corporations? Can one company be held liable for incremental damage when the crisis is collective? The court in Lliuya v. RWE essentially said no, at least not with the evidence presented. But the fact that the case advanced as far as it did is noteworthy. Most climate lawsuits do not survive procedural hurdles, let alone reach a stage where climate science and corporate responsibility are discussed in depth. This case forced a European court to consider whether a corporation could be liable for climate-related damage across borders. Even without a favorable ruling, the legal framework it helped shape may influence other jurisdictions. Just as U.S. courts are beginning to take youth-led climate lawsuits more seriously, international courts may one day revisit Lliuya's argument with a different outcome. The decision may be a disappointment to many climate advocates, but it is not a dead end. It is a milestone in what some legal scholars call "strategic litigation.' This is the use of the legal system not just to win individual cases, but to influence policy, raise awareness, and build momentum for broader change. The RWE decision also arrives at a moment of heightened scrutiny for corporate climate commitments. Even as some fossil fuel companies tout their decarbonization plans, many continue to invest heavily in fossil infrastructure. Policymakers and regulators now have an opportunity to step in where courts have hesitated. The legal questions raised by Lliuya's lawsuit could inform new laws or treaties addressing transnational environmental harm. As the world approaches COP30 and new rounds of climate finance negotiations, Lliuya's effort may serve as a moral and rhetorical guidepost. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm may have ruled against Saúl Luciano Lliuya, but the larger movement for corporate climate accountability has gained steam. As Lliuya's case moved along in Peru, activists in Canada pushed for stronger climate disclosure standards. The legislative measure failed, but the Canadian courts issued a ruling in favor of youth climate litigants alleging government responsibility for climate change impacts. Both groups vowed to fight on, 'We were significantly disappointed with Canada's first-ever sustainability disclosure standards released last month. These new regulations are a welcome step forward, but they still fail to respond to crucial problems for our specific context in Canada. In 2025, we will continue the fight for strong sustainable finance regulation that meets international standards.' If nothing else, Lliuya's decade-long fight reminds us that the climate crisis is personal, political, and legal. Each lawsuit, whether it ends in victory or not, helps redraw the boundaries of responsibility. In that sense, this case was never just about a glacial lake in Peru. It was about charting new paths to justice on a warming planet.
