A landmark free speech case has found that Dr Jereth Kok’s Christian and conservative views disqualify him from medical practice, even though his social media posts weren’t directed at patients and most were shared with limited visibility.
Dr Jereth Kok, a Melbourne-based GP suspended for posting memes, satire and Christian commentary on social media, has been found guilty of professional misconduct, in a landmark case with far-reaching implications for free speech in Australia.
In a 186-page ruling handed down last Tuesday, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found that Dr Kok’s deeply held religious views, expressed on social media between 2008 and 2022, were sufficient grounds to indefinitely suspend him from the medical profession.
Dr Kok — who had no prior history of patient complaints or professional misconduct before his suspension — now faces a separate sanctions hearing in early 2026 that could result in the full cancellation of his medical license.
In Medical Board of Australia v Dr Jereth Kok, VCAT assessed 85 social media posts made by Dr Kok on topics ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage, Islam, sex change surgery for children, COVID-19 mandates and “conversion therapy” bans.
The Tribunal concluded that two-thirds of the posts “denigrated, demeaned and slurred” members of protected identity groups and other medical practitioners, and also contributed to vaccine hesitancy.
Social Media Surveillance
Featured among Dr Kok’s 54 incriminating posts were two articles from satirical news site The Babylon Bee, a Spectator Australia column authored by Moira Deeming, an open letter from the Australian Christian Lobby, an X post by children’s advocate Katy Faust, an audio interview of John Piper, an Abigail Shrier book review, a link to the Ezekiel Declaration, comments left on Bill Muehlenberg’s website CultureWatch, and an article published at The Daily Declaration written by the author of this report.
Dr Kok described the widespread practice of abortion — which occurs an estimated 88,000 times annually in Australia — as “massacres of babies” and referred to the medical professionals who perform them as “butchers” and “serial contract killers”.
“I believe that life and personhood begin at conception,” Dr Kok told the Tribunal in his defence, explaining that his views on abortion were informed by his Christian faith. “I abhor the way our society conceals the truth about abortion by using deceitful euphemisms”. Nevertheless, his critique of abortion contributed to the ruling against him.
The Tribunal also found that, by referring to Chinese people as “ching chongs”, Dr Kok “failed to show respect and sensitivity for those from culturally diverse backgrounds”, even though Dr Kok explained that he used the term in a “light-hearted way about his own race” and it was “self-evidently an ironic statement”.
In another post, Dr Kok quoted Romans 12:17-21 and argued that, in contrast to Islam, Christianity promotes peace by entrusting justice to God rather than seeking it through violence.
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post’s clear meaning is that the Islamic religion is not a religion of peace,” the ruling states. “The Tribunal finds that this is derogatory towards a religious group.”
Around 80 per cent of Dr Kok’s implicated posts were made on Facebook, with only 13 of those visible to the general public — indicating that complainants and regulators either actively sought them out or were tipped off by people in his wider network.
Punishing Practitioners
Dr Kok and his legal team, the Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA), argued that while some of Dr Kok’s criticisms of abortion providers were impolite, regrettable, and possibly in breach of professional codes, they did not fall under the National Law’s regulatory scope.
HRLA maintained that his commentary was protected by the common law right to free speech, implied freedom of political communication, and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights, and was unrelated to his clinical competence or patient care.
However, the Tribunal gave little weight to this defence. VCAT acknowledged that Dr Kok’s conduct took place outside clinical settings and was not directed at patients. Nevertheless, it found that his personal use of social media — even when privacy settings were in place — must be sanctioned in the public’s interest, and amounted to the most serious breach under the National Law: professional misconduct.
“This case has serious implications for freedom of speech in Australia,” HRLA Principal Lawyer John Steenhof said in the wake of the ruling. “It will set a precedent in the law for AHPRA being able to exercise regulatory powers to suppress speech and personal, political and religious opinions on social media.”
“It also sets a bad precedent for what is legally considered in the ‘public interest’ under the National Law for the regulation of health practitioners,” he added.
Australian doctor found guilty of professional misconduct for sharing Babylon Bee jokeshttps://t.co/9fSvPLCJQx
— Not the Bee (@Not_the_Bee) July 28, 2025
“This case is important for Australians everywhere, but particularly for Australians who work as a member of a regulated profession,” Steenhof continued.
“Regulators like AHPRA and the Medical Board have significant powers over practitioners and their conduct. These powers are now not just being used to protect patients from serious medical malpractice, but to punish practitioners for holding and expressing unpopular social and moral views when they touch on medical issues.”
The disciplinary proceedings against Dr Kok spanned seven years until last week’s ruling, during which time he was barred from practising medicine and had to retrain in another profession to support his wife and young children.
LGBT Critique Prosecuted
In December 2021, VCAT used its statutory powers to seal Dr Kok’s case file, shielding most of the evidence compiled against him from public view. Now, for the first time, records of all 85 social media posts at the centre of the case are accessible to the public.
Two of the posts used to bar Dr Kok from clinical practice came from US comedic news site The Babylon Bee, both satirising perceived overreach by LGBT activists.
The first, “Congressional Prayer Lasts Two Days As Democrat Includes All 5,787 Genders”, which Dr Kok shared with friends of friends on Facebook, “failed to respect and be sensitive to gender diversity,” according to the Tribunal, and “was disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ community”.
The second, titled “Instead of Traditional Warfare, Chinese Military Will Now Be Trained To Shout Wrong Pronouns At American Troops”, also shared by Dr Kok with limited reach on Facebook, “belittled and trivialised the use of personal pronouns”, VCAT ruled.
Another upload cited in the decision to suspend Dr Kok’s licence was a screenshot of an X post by Christian children’s advocate Katy Faust, who, reflecting on her upbringing in a lesbian household, wrote:
You want a healthy marriage culture: each child has a same-sex parent showing them the adult they should become & an opposite sex parent showing what to look for in a SO. Children observe healthy communication, conflict resolution and daily love & respect. Both cheap & effective. https://t.co/ClUwMfEzNW
— Katy Faust (@Advo_Katy) December 26, 2020
This post, also shared by Dr Kok on Facebook with privacy settings enabled, was ruled by the Tribunal to be “denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ community as it indicated that only parents in a heterosexual marriage could appropriately care [sic] and raise children”.
The ruling against Dr Kok also referenced three of his own comments about helping people overcome same-sex attraction. In the first, shared with friends of friends on Facebook, Dr Kok wrote:
I can’t think of many things more cruel than denying help to people suffering from unwanted passions, sexual brokenness, or a confused sense of self. Making it impossible for them to enlist the support of a pastor or other trained professional as they seek after wholeness of being, and righteousness of conduct. What a disastrous irony that so-called ‘progressive liberals’ would trample on peoples’ right to self-determination.
Two other incriminating posts by Dr Kok appeared in the comments section of CultureWatch, a Christian commentary site run by Bill Muehlenberg, who is also a regular columnist for The Daily Declaration. There, Dr Kok wrote:
And:
Homosexual orientation (involuntary attraction to the same sex) is a disorder, but is not a sin in and of itself. Homosexual orientation may be addressed with therapy.
These views, the Tribunal ruled, were “inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession”.
Criticism of “Gender-Affirming Care” Penalised
Other posts cited in Dr Kok’s suspension took aim at so-called “gender-affirming care” — a protocol that can result in chemical and surgical castration, and that remains the subject of growing controversy and regulatory pushback around the world.
One involved a non-public Facebook repost of an article from The Spectator Australia, written by Victorian Liberal MP Moira Deeming and titled, “The cultural juggernaut of transgender ideology: not kids’ stuff”.
The Tribunal ruled that, by sharing Deeming’s article, Dr Kok “failed to behave professionally and courteously to other medical practitioners, as it referred to medical practitioners involved in the treatment of gender dysphoria as ‘mad scientists’ and engaging in transgender ideology”.
Another post, also shared with limited visibility, was a link to the Australian Christian Lobby’s “Open Letter to the Hon Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria”, to which Dr Kok added his own commentary:
Attention Victorian parents. One part of the diabolical ‘conversion or suppression’ bill that has received comparatively less attention: parents who try to STOP their child being sent away for bodily disfigurement will be charged with domestic violence. Yes, you read that right. Standing in the way of permanent bodily injury = violence. Sign this open letter to the Premier.
VCAT ruled that this post “failed to respect gender diversity” and was “denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons as it indicates that treatment for gender dysphoria is bodily disfigurement”.
Another post cited in the suspension of Dr Kok’s medical registration was an article he authored at Eternity News, formerly Australia’s flagship evangelical news website, titled “A Medical Perspective on Transgender”.
In ruling against Dr Kok, the Tribunal rejected his argument during cross-examination that gender dysphoria is a pathological or delusional belief analogous to other mistaken self-perceptions like anorexia nervosa. It also dismissed his claim that transgender identities are often shaped more by cultural trends and personal choice than irresistible feelings.
In commenting on the ruling, Dr Kok’s lawyer John Steenhof expressed concern that “the Tribunal gave no weight evidence that ‘gender affirming care’ is highly contentious and the subject of serious cultural and political and clinical debate”.
In March 2024, leaked documents from WPATH — the organisation setting Australian standards for “gender-affirming care” — revealed that clinicians were performing irreversible procedures on minors and vulnerable adults without proper consent. Children as young as 10 were given puberty blockers, patients with schizophrenia underwent surgery, and long-term harms like infertility and loss of sexual function were being downplayed.
A month later, the UK’s National Health Service released the long-awaited Cass Report. After four years of independent research, Dr Hilary Cass found that treatments for gender dysphoria in minors relied on “remarkably weak evidence,” with little study of long-term effects. She warned that the politicisation of medicine had silenced clinicians and exposed children to poor care.
In response, Western nations have begun restricting the controversial treatments. Last month, the US Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee ban on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and sex-change surgery for minors, empowering all 50 states to enforce similar laws.
This mirrors policy shifts globally — notably in the UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and France — where “gender affirming care” is now the subject of much stricter control.
Australia is yet to follow suit, despite growing calls from clinicians, lawmakers and prominent leaders.
COVID Mandate Dissent Censured
All of Dr Kok’s online commentary relating to COVID-19 was deemed misconduct by the Tribunal.
Three of the censured posts relied on humour, either in meme format or as satirical commentary.
One showed an image of a Roman Emperor giving a thumbs-down gesture, captioned: “When you get a friend request and their profile has the ‘Stay home, stay safe’ frame…”
Though Dr Kok shared the meme with restricted settings, the Tribunal ruled that it “denigrates, demeans and slurs of persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders and likened them to how a Roman Emperor would consider a defeated gladiator”.
Another post featured a Venn diagram with three overlapping circles labelled: “Thinks vaccines are generally good,” “Wary of vaccines invented less than 1 year ago,” and “Ferociously against vaccine mandates and vaccine apartheid (PRO CHOICE).” At the intersection of all three circles was the word “ME,” indicating that Dr Kok identified with all these views simultaneously.
While Dr Kok only shared this post with friends of friends on Facebook, VCAT found that it “implies that the COVID-19 vaccines were not safe and effective, drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines”.
The Tribunal also ruled that “the post was inconsistent with Dr Kok’s responsibility to promote the health of the community through disease prevention and control, education and screening and participating in efforts to promote the health of the community”.
In a third playful post, also published with privacy settings enabled, Dr Kok wrote that “2020 will be remembered as the year when the facemask replaced the tinfoil-hat as a symbol of paranoid hysteria”.
According to the Tribunal, this post “denigrates, demeans and slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders by implying that those who wore a facemask were suffering from paranoid hysteria”.
In a more pointed critique of the social impact from COVID lockdowns, Dr Kok shared, to a limited audience, a photo of a sign reading, “If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied during 1930’s Germany, now you know.”
VCAT ruled that this post “denigrates, demeans and slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders as it indicated that they were equivalent to the German public who allowed the Nazi [sic] to rise to power”.
Two additional COVID-themed posts that factored into Dr Kok’s suspension were comments shared on Facebook with restricted reach:
The Rubicon has been crossed in the UK. The Government has decided to vaccinate children against scientific advice, not for reasons of health, not to stop the spread of Covid in schools or society. For the first time in living memory, medication is going to be administered to children NOT for the health of individuals or populations, but for political and socioeconomic reasons — to maintain school attendance.
And:
The truth is that there are many people who have no objection to the tried & proven vaccines (eg. Tetanus, measles) who will not want to be forced to have a brand new vaccine which has been produced in record time, where corners were cut in production & testing, where there is no long term safety data, and where politics rather than science is the main driving force behind widespread distribution.
According to the Tribunal, these posts “drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric”, “negatively portray[ed] the speed of the development and testing and approval of the vaccine, and implie[d] the vaccine was not safe and was not provided for scientific or medical purposes but for political purposes”, and were “a discouragement for people to the take the vaccine”.
Dr Kok also shared two articles on Facebook in non-public mode that the Tribunal ruled “downplay[ed] the benefits of vaccination” and “minimised the very real risk of the hospital system being overwhelmed and substantially understates [sic] the risks of the virus and benefits of the vaccine”, respectively.
The first of these was the Ezekiel Declaration, an open letter urging then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison to allow churches to stay open, which was signed by almost 30,000 concerned Christians.
The second was a Daily Declaration article by this author titled “‘My Body, My Choice’: Rescuing the Pro-Abortion Slogan to Promote Vaccine Freedom”, which has also been scrubbed from Google’s search index.
VCAT ruled that for Dr Kok to hold and express such views disqualified him from being “a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession”.
Next Steps
Notably, while the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that the Victorian Charter of Rights theoretically protected Dr Kok’s right to speech, none of his posts were protected in practice.
In many cases, the Tribunal sanctioned posts that included memes, articles written by others, satire, and criticisms of progressive ideology.
Reacting to the ruling, Dr Kok’s lawyer John Steenhof explained, “On its face, there appear to be significant issues with the judgment that would merit serious consideration of an appeal.”
“HRLA will be working with counsel to consider appeal prospects in more detail,” he added.
A separate hearing to decide sanctions is expected in early 2026 and could result in anything from a formal reprimand to permanent deregistration.
If appealed, Dr Kok’s case may stretch into 2027 or 2028 — a full decade since the original complaint.
This article originally appeared on The Daily Declaration and has been republished by The Noticer with permission.
