In the pre-internet era, discussing religion or politics was often considered impolite outside close family or friends. But in 2025, social media platforms have transformed into public forums where individuals freely voice opinions on contentious issues, from abortion to public health policies.
For most, these online expressions are seen as separate from professional life. However, the case of Dr. Jereth Kok, an Australian general practitioner, challenges this assumption, raising urgent questions about free speech, thought policing, and the extent to which personal beliefs can cost someone their career.
Dr. Jereth Kok, a Christian GP from Melbourne, has been suspended from medical practice since 2019 under emergency powers by the Medical Board of Australia. Two weeks ago, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) upheld his suspension, finding him guilty of professional misconduct over 54 social media posts made over a 12-year period.
These posts, which expressed his views on abortion, gender ideology, and COVID-19 policies, were deemed “disrespectful,” “derogatory,” and insufficiently balanced by the tribunal, despite having no connection to his clinical practice or patient care.
This ruling, which effectively ends Dr. Kok’s medical career, has ignited a broader conversation about whether professionals in Australia can express personal beliefs without fear of professional ruin.
The posts and the punishment
Dr. Kok’s posts, made on personal social media accounts, reflected his Christian faith and conservative views. They covered topics that are deeply divisive: abortion, which he equated to murder and described practitioners as “butchers”; gender ideology, including a post suggesting transgender identity is a mental health issue; and COVID-19 policies, where he questioned vaccine development processes and lockdown measures.
Notably, some posts were satirical, including a shared article from The Babylon Bee, a U.S.-based comedy platform, which mocked the use of gender pronouns. VCAT labeled this post “denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful, and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons,” citing a lack of respect for “gender diversity.”
Another post, an article Dr. Kok wrote addressing transgender ideology from a Christian perspective, received similar criticism.
The tribunal cleared Dr. Kok of misconduct for 31 of the 85 posts reviewed, acknowledging that many were political or religious in nature or did not carry the alleged meanings. However, the 54 posts deemed problematic were enough to uphold his suspension. The Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA), representing Dr. Kok, argues that this decision represents a “concerning expansion of regulatory power” into personal belief and expression, with no evidence that Dr. Kok’s views affected his ability to treat patients competently.
Free speech under fire
Dr. Kok’s case is not just about one doctor’s career, it’s about the broader implications for free speech in Australia.
The HRLA emphasised that his posts were made in a private capacity, outside of work, and were often limited in visibility, such as being shared with “friends of friends” on Facebook. Yet, the Medical Board of Australia and VCAT asserted their authority to discipline him for these expressions, citing breaches of the Medical Board’s Code of Conduct.
This raises a critical question: should a professional’s personal beliefs, expressed outside their workplace, be grounds for losing their livelihood?
Australia has long prided itself on being a democratic society that values freedom of expression, as underscored by legal precedents like Attorney-General (SA) v Adelaide City Corporation (2013), which links free speech to the health of representative democracies.
Dr. Kok’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is also protected under section 14 of Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Yet, VCAT gave little weight to these protections, prioritising perceived “disrespect” over constitutional and common law principles.
The inclusion of a satirical Babylon Bee post as evidence of misconduct is particularly striking. Satire, by its nature, is meant to provoke thought and critique societal trends, often through humor.
Labeling such content as derogatory suggests a narrow interpretation of acceptable speech, one that could stifle creative expression and humor. If sharing a comedic article can cost a doctor their career, what does this mean for other professionals who engage with controversial or satirical content online?
A polarised world
Dr. Kok’s views on abortion, sexuality, and COVID-19 policies are rooted in his Christian faith and shared by many devout followers of various religions. These perspectives – opposition to abortion, skepticism about gender-affirming treatments, and concerns about vaccine mandates – are not unique to him.
Surveys and studies, such as those from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, indicate that a significant portion of Australians hold conservative views on issues like abortion and traditional family structures, but they are less vocal due to social pressures. Globally, similar sentiments are common, particularly among religious communities.
The problem lies not in the existence of these views but in their suppression. Dr. Kok’s posts were deemed “unacceptable” by VCAT, yet had he expressed pro-vaccine, pro-abortion, or pro-LGBTQI+ views, as many people do and should be able to do – he would not have faced any scrutiny at all.
This double standard suggests a form of thought policing, where only certain perspectives are deemed permissible. Lyle Shelton of the Family First Party called this ruling “un-Australian,” arguing that it enforces “ideological conformity” and crushes dissent.
Many Australians, particularly those in regulated professions, may now hesitate to share their beliefs publicly, fearing professional repercussions.
The role of AHPRA and regulatory overreach
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which oversees the Medical Board, has faced criticism for its handling of cases like Dr. Kok’s. A 2024 report highlighted that only 35% of medical practitioners view AHPRA positively, with concerns about lengthy investigations and lack of transparency.
Dr. Kok’s six-year suspension under emergency powers, without any patient complaints or evidence of clinical harm, exemplifies this overreach. The fact that some of his posts predate AHPRA’s 2014 social media policy further questions the fairness of retroactively applying guidelines to past behavior.
AHPRA’s broad interpretation of its regulatory scope allows it to discipline practitioners for personal speech, even when it has no bearing on their professional competence.
This approach risks creating a culture where professionals self-censor to avoid career-ending consequences. How many doctors, nurses, or teachers hold similar views to Dr. Kok but remain silent out of fear? And how does this silence benefit society, when open debate is essential for progress and cornerstone of democracy?
Online activity in aged care
The risks of expressing controversial views online are particularly relevant for nurses and other aged care staff, who operate in a sector where public health policies can spark intense debate. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a significant number of aged care staff opposed vaccine mandates.
While the vast majority complied, with 99.8% of residential aged care workers receiving at least one dose by October 2021, some did so reluctantly, and a small number left the profession to avoid vaccination altogether. Since the pandemic, vaccine hesitancy has risen across Australia.
A 2025 report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare noted that only 40% of Australians aged 75 and older in residential aged care had received a COVID-19 booster in the past six months, reflecting broader hesitancy trends that may extend to staff.
Nurses in aged care, regulated by AHPRA, face similar scrutiny to doctors when it comes to online activity. AHPRA’s social media guidelines warn that public statements, even on personal accounts, can reflect on a nurse’s professional conduct.
Sharing views that challenge public health directives, such as vaccine mandates, could lead to complaints or disciplinary action, especially if deemed to undermine public confidence in healthcare. Nurses should exercise caution, ensuring their posts do not breach AHPRA’s code of conduct, which prioritises public safety and professional standards.
In contrast, carers in aged care, such as personal care assistants, are not regulated by AHPRA and face less formal oversight. While this allows greater freedom to express personal views online, it also means they may lack the structured guidance AHPRA provides to registered professionals.
Carers should still be mindful, as employers or industry bodies can impose their own policies, and public backlash could affect their employment. If another pandemic or contentious issue arises, aged care staff may hold views opposing government consensus, as seen during COVID-19.
Before sharing such opinions online, they should consider the potential professional and social consequences, including scrutiny from employers, colleagues, or the public
Should personal views end a career?
At the heart of this case is a simple question: should Dr. Kok’s personal beliefs disqualify him from practicing medicine?
There is no evidence that his views impacted his patient care. His suspension was based solely on his online activity, not his professional conduct. This precedent suggests that any professional in a regulated industry – doctors, lawyers, teachers – could face similar consequences for expressing unpopular opinions, even in private forums.
If a doctor’s private social media posts, spanning over a decade, can end their career, what message does this send to others? The HRLA is considering an appeal, and the outcome could set a precedent for how far regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal lives.
As Australians, we must ask ourselves: do we value a society where diverse opinions, even those we find offensive, can be expressed without fear of professional ruin? Or are we content with a system that reprimands those who step outside the bounds of “acceptable” thought?
I can’t understand while our governments are not protecting people of faith and people with genuine views from this persecution. In Australia? I’d expect this from one of the paranoid dictatorships.
The issue is when your personal/religious beliefs threaten the health and safety of other human beings. Medical professionals who don’t believe women, or LGBTQI+ individuals, deserve decision-making autonomy over their own bodies have no place in medicine. Their refusal to provide treatment because of their personal, not clinical, beliefs can literally cost lives.
100% agree, thank you!
I think this doctor does believe that women deserve autonomy over their own bodies? If he didn’t, he probably wouldn’t have had female patients return to his clinic. He seems to have the belief that women shouldn’t have full autonomy over the bodies of others inside their wombs though, and I agree. Just because someone unwanted is inside your house, doesn’t mean you have the right to kill them.
If you’re defining “acceptable thought” as the idea that fetuses conceived out of abuse and/or rape are the responsibility of the victim to bear to term and risk their health and wellbeing for, then Yes. I am fully and wholeheartedly content with a system that calls to account the bearers of such reprehensible judgement, particularly when those people also hold the power to decide the course of treatment for such a vulnerable population.
This is not a matter of personal opinions. This is a matter of damaging and incorrect opinions, including prejudices and biases that have taken decades to even begin to overturn by a minority group who have previously faced persecution, abuse and/or death for their identity, forcing them to hide and be denied adequate medical treatment as a result. Deciding that the LGBTQIA+ community are simply victims of mental health conditions led to homosexuality being defined as a disease for many, many years. The fact that it’s no longer in the DSM means that this opinion is not only rooted in dep prejudice, but is inherently wrong. A medical practitioner, or someone who is responsible for the lives of those in the community, sharing medically incorrect information, even on the basis of it being an opinion, is clearly not putting medical facts first.
You should seriously rethink this article, as it is clearly leant toward showing empathy for the doctor for not being allowed to express an incorrect, potentially harmful opinion. The reason that such reprimand would not have occurred if these opinions had looked favourably on the LGBTQIA+ community, on being pro-life, on advocating for health protections through vaccinations, is because these opinions are not harmful to vulnerable members of the community. Personal beliefs that put the lives of one’s community members, even those members who do not act in accordance with your personal doctrine, at any kind of risk are beliefs that require education and understanding, not excuses.
VCAT has undeniably done the right thing here by not allowing someone who does not value the lives, health and wellbeing of portions of the community he may well be treating to continue practicing medicine. It is mentioned that there was no evidence that these beliefs had impacted his medical conduct, but when considering his clearly demonstrable conscious bias, it is difficult to dispute that the risk of him acting in accordance with his beliefs is both logical and too hazardous to allow.
You mentioned that the simple question at the heart of this matter is whether someone’s personal beliefs should disqualify them from practicing medicine. This question has an equally simple answer: When their beliefs put the health and wellbeing of other community members at risk.
You also mention that open debate is essential for progress. There is no debating whether human beings should be allowed to exist, that their freedoms should not be impinged upon, that their health and their choices not be dictated to them by any other person.
If you believe otherwise, you should not be allowed anywhere near a caring profession.
Another area where the minority are protected and put on pedestal, and anyone with personal beliefs is victimised… Sound like Australia is going down the looney tunes of USA stupidity.
Whilst we may have diverse views, if your profession is to serve the public, then expressing your views across media or in a public view actually does not uphold professional standards. This is more so, in the case of a Doctor who has taken an oath to serve the public he has denigrated. Christianity has the right to believe their doctrines, however across the world many of these doctrines can also contradict each other so to express those means that you are entering an area that may lead to views about professional conduct.
I may have my beliefs but that does not give me a right to force those opinions through my previous work. In contrast, we have teachers who have been forced from teaching in Christian schools because they may not agree with the particular doctrine. As a Doctor, he upholds the integrity of all medical practitioners and should be able to remove any bias from his professional work. We live in a democracy where diverse opinions can exist but they must not affect service to the public.
While I personally think its odd that an educated person trained in science and medicine holds such faith based (rather than science based) beliefs, I do agree that to some extent he has the right to hold them. However, Its how you express those views that is the key factor. In this instance, the news reports suggest that his posts “expressed sentiments of violence and made derogatory statements” towards Religious groups, Racial groups, Medical practitioners and hospitals as well as LGBTQI+ people. I feel if the positions were reversed and a GP was posting in a similar fashion about his faith, he would want them to be deregistered. Bottom line is that it doesn’t matter what others believe, or what you believe, treat everyone with respect and kindness and we will all get by..