About Free Speech and That Nurse In BC

So, apparently Pierre Poilievre thinks that a certain nurse's comments about transgender people are an example of "free speech and free thought".   

Let's talk about that for a moment.  Ms. Hamm belongs to a regulated profession (voluntarily), and she made these comments very publicly while citing herself as an "authority" because she is a nurse. 

Nobody is saying that she can't hold those opinions - at all.  She can believe the earth is flat for all I care - she's perfectly entitled to her nonsense ideas.  She is similarly free to express those ideas.  

However, a problem arises when she decides to use her professional status to imply that she has additional knowledge and expertise that gives her opinion additional weight.  Firstly, while she likely has somewhat more information on the subject than the average person on the street, that is far from "being an expert".  

In fact, I would submit that Ms. Hamm's knowledge of human development - both physical and psychological is profoundly limited.  To insist that there are only two genders (sexes is what she's referring to in reality) is demonstrably false.  I'm not going to bore you with the complexities here - that's much bigger than I can do justice to in this blog post - suffice it to say that frankly her position is stuck in middle-school science classes, and is profoundly ignorant of a sizeable body of scientific evidence that you should already be aware of if you completed high school.  

The issue here is not that Ms. Hamm expressed her views (however misguided they may be), but instead chose to do so while declaring herself a member of a registered, regulated profession in an effort to make her opinions seem more credible. 

Remember, nobody said that she had to become a nurse - that was a decision she made.  Regulated professions often place limits on the activities of regulated members for a variety of reasons.  For one example, it is inappropriate for a psychologist to make public diagnosis statements about people they have never seen in clinic.  They might think a certain politician is a "classic example of a personality disorder", but should never say "This politician is a clear example of ...", even more clearly definitely do not say "As a psychologist, this politician ...". 

Why do regulating bodies frown on such things?  Because it can be profoundly damaging to the credibility of the profession in the eyes of the public.  Further, it is the use of one's title to represent oneself as an expert in a domain when in fact the individual may not possess such expertise as is being claimed. Also, it is quite possible, if not probable, that the declaration itself may in fact be damaging to members of the public.  As another example, a psychologist may have a passing knowledge of certain personality disorders, but because that individual psychologist doesn't have specific training for personality disorders they may not be considered qualified to do so.  Just being a psychologist doesn't make a person qualified in all aspects of the field. 

Do these guidelines result in limitations on regulated members' Charter rights and freedoms?  Yes, at times they do.  Are those limitations unreasonable?  They have the potential to be unreasonable, for sure, and that is part of why there needs to be a process executed which allows all parties involved (or affected) to be heard.

As the ruling around Ms. Hamm's conduct points out, her comments send a message to the transgender community that some nurses are unsafe for them to be around.  Considering that health care is point in a person's life where they have to be exceptionally vulnerable to begin with, a member of a marginalized minority that is already known to have difficulties accessing needed health care is much more likely to be reluctant to seek out health care knowing that they could encounter Ms. Hamm or one of her followers.  That is a non-trivial issue for a profession like Nursing.  In a treatment setting, it's not like you can simply "go to another nurse" when you are lying in a hospital bed. 

Ms. Hamm, has predictably doubled down on her anti-trans activism and is now playing the martyr card.  To be fair, she's entitled to whatever beliefs she may hold.  However, her right to hold and express those beliefs has to exist in relation to the rights and obligations she would have towards patients - both current and prospective future patients.  

To those who argue that somehow this is a gross infringement upon Ms. Hamm's Charter Rights, I invite you to consider the wording of Section 1 of the Charter, which talks about reasonable limits.  There is a potentially valid argument that the scope of professional regulators is too far-reaching in this regard.  Where is the line between her rights to express her beliefs and the rights of those impacted by those expressions in your mind?  Would you feel safe with a nurse who had openly declared your existence to be "wrong" for any reason?