COLUMN: Think Again – Regulatory bodies should stay out of politics

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 04/10/2022 (1485 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Amy Eileen Hamm, a registered nurse in British Columbia, is currently on trial with the British Columbia College of Nursing and Midwives. The stakes are high. If Hamm loses her case, she faces the real possibility of having her nursing license revoked.

Interestingly, Hamm isn’t accused of abusing her patients or of providing substandard medical care. Nor has anyone alleged that Hamm put any patient at risk. Rather, Hamm’s “crime” is that she publicly expressed her view that biological sex is real.

Hamm is a founding member of Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights, a group that advocates for the sex-based rights of women and girls. This group believes that women should have the right to separate spaces in areas such washrooms and changerooms. They also want women’s sports restricted based on biological sex.

Frankly, it’s bizarre that this trial is even happening. Whether Hamm’s personal opinions on this issue are right or wrong, it isn’t the role of the nursing college to police the political beliefs of its members. A nursing regulatory body should focus on upholding the professional standards of the nursing profession, not on ensuring that all nurses hold the “correct” view on controversial topics.

Regulating professional activity is one thing. Dictating political ideology is quite another. Determining whether Hamm’s views are right or wrong is a matter of opinion and falls well outside the appropriate domain of any professional regulatory body. In fact, one should expect to see a variety of opinions among any group of professionals. That is what real diversity looks like.

Sadly, BC’s nursing college is far from the only regulatory body to overstep its bounds and cross into the domain of politics. For example, former Ottawa high school teacher Chanel Pfahl is currently being investigated by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) for two brief comments she made last year on a private teachers’ Facebook group.

In her first comment, Pfahl argued that teachers shouldn’t indoctrinate kids in critical race theory but should instead show kindness to everyone and speak out against all forms of discrimination. Pfahl’s second comment consisted of a link to a speech by United Kingdom cabinet minister Kemi Badenoch explaining her government’s opposition to critical race theory.

These comments by Pfahl form the sole basis for OCT’s investigation which began several months ago and is still underway. One wonders how long it takes OCT officials to investigate two Facebook comments.

What should be concerning to everyone is that this investigation has nothing to do with Pfahl’s professional work as a teacher. Rather, it amounts to an evaluation of Pfahl’s political beliefs, just like what we see happening to Hamm.

Fortunately, some professionals are pushing back against regulatory bodies that overstep their authority. For example, when the Law Society of Ontario tried to force all lawyers in that province to adopt and abide by a statement advocating equality and diversity, dissenting lawyers got organized and voted in a new board of directors (benchers). The new benchers then voted to scrap this mandatory statement of principles.

Regulatory bodies already have plenty of real work to do without getting into the business of policing the political beliefs of their members. While professionals should be expected to meet a common professional standard, they do not need to all hold the same political beliefs. Diversity of thought among professionals is something that should be welcomed, not shut down.

Nurses, teachers, lawyers, and other professionals must have the same right to freedom of expression as all other Canadians. Thus, regulatory bodies should stick to their core purpose and stay out of politics.

Michael Zwaagstra is a high school teacher and a Steinbach city councillor. He can be reached at mzwaagstra@shaw.ca.