Online satire can now cost you your medical career

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has found Christian GP and HRLA client Dr Jereth Kok guilty of professional misconduct – not for any clinical failing, but for expressing his deeply held views on social media.

Over a 12-year period, Dr Kok shared posts critical of abortion, gender ideology, and COVID-19 policies.

The Tribunal found 54 of these 85 posts to be misconduct under the National Law, despite their political, religious, and satirical nature – and despite lacking any connection to or impact on patient care.

VCAT found that Dr Kok’s posts, among other things, were “disrespectful” and “derogatory”, not sufficiently balanced or unbiased, and legitimised Covid vaccine hesitancy.

The decision is deeply disappointing for Dr Kok and sets a concerning precedent for freedom of speech in Australia, particularly for professionals who hold Christian or conservative beliefs.

It confirms that regulators like AHPRA and the Medical Board have significant powers to discipline practitioners not only for what they do in their clinical practice, but for holding and expressing unpopular social or moral views – even in a private capacity.

The Tribunal considered but gave little weight to constitutional or freedom of speech protections.

One of the posts found to be misconduct was a satirical Babylon Bee article that made fun of the use of gender pronouns, which VCAT said showed a lack of respect for “gender diversity”.

According to Tribunal:

The post was disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ community as it was making fun of LGBTQI+ people as members of a group …

Another offending post was an article written by Dr Kok addressing transgender ideology from a Christian perspective, which the Tribunal found to be “denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons”.

The worst allegations were not upheld, and over a third of the posts were not found to be misconduct. The Tribunal recognised the use of satire or sarcasm in a number of posts and that others contained genuine religious or political commentary.

However, as in the two examples above, many of these posts were found to breach the National Law.

This is a deeply concerning shift in regulatory scope over personal speech.

The VCAT decision in Medical Board of Australia v Dr Jereth Kok signals a concerning expansion of regulatory power into areas of personal belief, political expression and religious conviction.

For Christian professionals – and indeed for any professional who holds views outside the progressive mainstream – the implications are serious.

This decision is disappointing to Dr Kok, who was suspended over six years ago and has lost his career. But the ramifications extend much further to all Australians, particularly those who work in a regulated profession. The decision raises concerns about whether Australia will continue to allow employers, regulators, and government to exercise power over free speech and the expression of personal, political, and religious opinions.

HRLA will continue to act for Dr Kok and is carefully considering the prospects of appeal.