Amy Hamm - Canadian Nurse being disciplined for being GC

[IcakethereforeIam]

I've not seen a thread on Amy on MN and the search didn't show up anything. She seems to be being put through the wringer by tras and by her nursing college.

I thought if she saw this thread it might be cheering , she's on twitter. I found her thanks to Bette.

quillette.com/2022/04/08/im-being-investigated-by-the-british-columbia-college-of-nurses-because-i-believe-biological-sex-is-real/

And another cbc article.

That was an interesting read. She’s far more organised and active than I realised, which makes the case less unlikely.

It tried hard to make her look bad, yet still fails unless you buy into the ideology whole heartedly.

BF now cross examining AH - and being as rude as ever.

Just tuning in now, been doing dinner, looking forward to hearing BF making more of a tit of herself.

BF is throwing as much bullshit as she can instead of arguing the points. It is painful to listen to.

I like Lisa Billy, I would like BF to retreat to a hermit lifestyle and move herself to a cave somewhere.

BF trying to introduce post case closed tweets is being argued against.

BF - Miss Hamm hasn't sat quietly waiting for her fate.

WTF

It's like listening to paint dry. She has such an odd monotone and pacing to her speech it's actually difficult to follow the sentences and understand the argument shes making.

So I've just joined on the tail end of an objection...I think ...and now they've broken for lunch. Bildy sounded pretty cross, suggesting bf "putting words in AH mouth" to make case fit the narrative. And closing screen of bf was a little unflattering... but I'd love to know what I missed. Anyone out there able to summarise further?

Impossible - BF was trying to make a case that AH wasn't an innocent person who didn't want to be dragged into all this (as she had testified on Friday) because she had been tweeting about the tribunal after her submissions, so that makes her statement on Friday wrong (subtext - she is a raging transphobe activist that is doing this because she is a unreasonable, hateful transphobic bigot).

Her counsel objected on the grounds that AH's submission was made back when, and AH was under no obligation to sit still (like a good girl) and that any tweets after her submissions are not relevant.

The panel has adjourned to look at the tweets and also for their lunch break.

Note - In contrast to our tribunals, the amount of breaks, lunch breaks and panel consultations off camera are astounding.

BF is trying introduce tweets that were not part of the college's claim and were dated subsequent to it. Bildy objects because the tweets were subsequent to the college's claim. BF claims the tweets are not part of the claim but the reasons she wants to question Amy on them is that they contradict Amy's testimony that she didn't want to get involved in any of this. I'm not what BF is trying to do here but she seemed to imply that Amy wasn't sincere because she continued her advocacy, told her followers about the hearings and what was happening to her. BF implied that if Amy had been sincere she would have submitted meekly and quietly to the disciplinary hearing and stopped her advocacy!

She's basically trying to get the panel to agree that Amy is a liar.

That Amy said on Friday that she didn't want to talk about her advocacy or this case at work, if that is the case says BF, then why is Amy mentioning the case on Twitter at all. The fact that Amy is tweeting about the case means she does want to talk about it which means she lied on Friday.

BF is missing the fact that part of why Amy spoke up on Twitter was that she needed funding and legal representation to fight this stupid case and publicity is the way to get that. The college has effectively forced her to 'go public' whether she likes it or not, because without the public sight she would either need to find thousands to pay the lawyers or she would need to go unrepresented.

OK, the panel upholds Bildys objection. Good.

TBH the panel could not have made any other decision without giving grounds for an appeal. As I said earlier BF is trying to kick this down the road.

Because if AH wins then Canadian has its Forstater ruling. And they don't want that to happen.

*Canada ( autocorrect is a bit fierce on Mumsnet)

This line of questioning is weird. Surely she's not obliged to accept intersectionality as a concept simply because it featured on an optional course that she took on trans healthcare.

She is just waffling. None of her approach makes any sense.

Now bf querying Amy's stated position that she doesn't believe in gender identity.

AH - not being cornered here.

She's doing well. bf is confusing herself.

I'm pretty sure she's trying to get Amy to say the words " all trans people have a mental illness or sexual paraphilia"

bf's questions are very confusing.

Yes, and AH is not going for it.

I think BFs approach is to go round the houses and hope that her 'victims' will trip themselves up.

So, she is bringing the TRA 'argument' into the legal world and it doesn't wash. As we know.