Medical Board of Australia v Kok [2025] VCAT 650 | Case summary | Zoe

[12]

On 24 December 2017, a confidential notification to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency ('Ahpra') was made.
On 2 March 2018 the Board decided to commence an investigation of Dr Kok regarding a social media post.
On 22 May 2019, the Ahpra received a further confidential notification regarding further social media posts by Dr Kok.
On 22 August 2019, the Board decided to take immediate action to suspend Dr Kok's registration as a medical practitioner.
On 27 March 2020, this Tribunal (differently constituted) confirmed the suspension of Dr Kok's registration.
On 15 December 2021, the Board made a written referral regarding Dr Kok to the Tribunal and attached a Notice of Allegations.
On 6 December 2023, the Board filed an Amended Notice of Allegations ('ANOA'). The allegations and particulars contained in the ANOA are reproduced in Schedule 1 to these reasons.[2]
On about 23 July 2024, pursuant to directions made by the Tribunal, the parties filed with the Tribunal a joint amended Tribunal Book.
The proceeding came on for hearing before the Tribunal on 29 to 31 July 2024, 1 and 2 August 2024 and 14 October 2024.
The Board relied upon the oral and written evidence of Professor J Zajac, an endocrinologist, and Professor C Blyth, an infectious diseases physician, clinical microbiologist and clinical academic, as well as various documents in the Tribunal Book and additional documents provided to the Tribunal at the hearing.
Dr Kok gave evidence to the Tribunal and adopted his witness statement contained in the Tribunal Book. Dr Kok also relied upon oral and written evidence of Professor N Petrovsky, an endocrinologist, Dr C Breakey, a recently retired Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, and Dr D Wilson, a paediatrician. The witness statement of Dr R Gagnon, a Professor of Biblical Studies, was tendered without cross-examination.
After the evidence was heard, the parties filed and served written submissions and made oral submissions at a later hearing date.
The Tribunal reserved its decision. After the hearing in this matter was completed and prior to the Tribunal making its decision, the respondent sought leave to file and rely upon two further matters, being a press release from the United Kingdom's Department of Health and Social Care, dated 11 December 2024, and a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in Bay v Australian Health Practitioner Regulations Agency [2024] QSC 315 ('Bay') delivered on 13 December 2024. The Tribunal made orders for the parties to file short written supplementary submissions on these matters. The last written submission was received on 24 February 2025.
In the supplementary submissions, mistakenly dated 12 February 2024 (should read 2025), the respondent drew the Tribunal's attention to Bay. It was submitted that the decision was about the Board's decision to take immediate action to suspend the practitioner and to investigate him and refer him to the Tribunal regarding public commentary about Covid-19 vaccines. In its written decision, the Court notes that the Board's regulatory role did not include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism and that it should have been apparent to the Board that all notifications were of political conduct by the practitioner. In reply to the Board's submissions, Dr Kok submitted in part that, [j]udicial observations that do not pertain to the legal determination of facts are not to be ignored but are to be given their 'proper weight'.
The submissions also sought leave for Dr Kok to rely upon a press release from the United Kingdom's Department of Health and Social Care regarding treatment for gender dysphoria. The press release stated that the United Kingdom Government has placed an indefinite ban on puberty blocking medication for children. It was submitted that this evidence supports Dr Kok's submission that gender dysphoria treatment is 'a highly contested area of medicine and social policy'.
In its supplementary submissions dated 19 February 2025, the Board submitted that the Bay decision set aside the Board's decisions to take immediate action against the practitioner and to investigate the practitioner due to legal error by the Board. The legal errors were said to involve apprehended bias, a failure to afford procedural fairness to the practitioner and the taking into account irrelevant considerations. The Board submitted that the passages of the decision in Bay relied upon by Dr Kok were not part of the reasons why the immediate action decision and investigation decision were set aside by the Court. Further, it was submitted that these passages do not state a binding rule for this Tribunal in making its decision.
In relation to the press release from the United Kingdom's Department of Health and Social Care, the Board does not oppose the admission of this document into evidence but argues that it is not material to the matters in issues in this case. The Tribunal decided to admit this document into evidence.
The following are the Tribunal's reasons for decision.

[17]

1.4 Professional values and qualities of doctors

While individual doctors have their own personal beliefs and values, there are certain professional values on which all doctors are expected to base their practice.

Doctors have a duty to make the care of patients their first concern and to practise medicine safely and effectively. They must be ethical and trustworthy.

Patients trust their doctors because they believe that, in addition to being competent, their doctor will not take advantage of them and will display qualities such as integrity, truthfulness, dependability and compassion.

Patients also rely on their doctors to protect their confidentiality.

Doctors have a responsibility to protect and promote the health of individuals and the community.

Good medical practice is patient-centred. It involves doctors understanding that each patient is unique, and working in partnership with their patients, adapting what they do to address the needs and reasonable expectations of each patient. This includes cultural awareness: being aware of their own culture and beliefs and respectful of the beliefs and cultures of others, recognising that these cultural differences may impact on the doctor-patient relationship and on the delivery of health services.

Good communication underpins every aspect of good medical practice.

Professionalism embodies all the qualities described here, and includes self-awareness and self-reflection.

Doctors are expected to reflect regularly on whether they are practising effectively, on what is happening in their relationships with patients and colleagues, and on their own health and wellbeing. They have a duty to keep their skills and knowledge up to date, refine and develop their clinical judgement as they gain experience, and contribute to their profession.

...

3.7 Culturally safe and sensitive practice

Good medical practice involves genuine efforts to understand the cultural needs and contexts of different patients to obtain good health outcomes. This includes:

3.7.1 Having knowledge of, respect for, and sensitivity towards, the cultural needs of the community you serve, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

3.7.2 Acknowledging the social, economic, cultural and behavioural factors influencing health, both at individual and population levels.

3.7.3 Understanding that your own culture and beliefs influence your interactions with patients and ensuring that this does not unduly influence your decision-making.

3.7.4 Adapting your practice to improve patient engagement and healthcare outcomes.

...

4.1 Introduction

Good relationships with medical colleagues, nurses and other healthcare professionals strengthen the doctor- patient relationship and enhance patient care.

4.2 Respect for medical colleagues and other healthcare professionals

Good patient care is enhanced when there is mutual respect and clear communication between all healthcare professionals involved in the care of the patient. Good medical practice involves:

4.2.1 Communicating clearly, effectively, respectfully and promptly with other doctors and healthcare professionals caring for the patient.

4.2.2 Acknowledging and respecting the contribution of all healthcare professionals involved in the care of the patient.

4.2.3 Behaving professionally and courteously to colleagues and other practitioners including when using social media.

...

5.4 Public health

Doctors have a responsibility to promote the health of the community through disease prevention and control, education and screening. Good medical practice involves:

5.4.1 Understanding the principles of public health, including health education, health promotion, disease prevention and control and screening.

5.4.2 Participating in efforts to promote the health of the community and being aware of your obligations in disease prevention, screening and reporting notifiable diseases.

...

[30]

A major aspect of Dr Kok's case was his freedom of speech related submissions. In summary, it was submitted that a common law right to freedom of speech, Dr Kok's rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) ('the Charter') and/or the implied freedom of political communication under the Australian constitution, meant that Dr Kok's conduct in speaking as set out in the allegations, could not be regulated by the National Law.
The brief summary of Dr Kok's case in his written closing submissions, included the following:
1. The Board's case against Dr Kok is that he has engaged in professional misconduct by reason of a collection of public posts that he made on Facebook and on Christian websites expressing his personal beliefs on religious and social matters. For that reason the Board's case fails in limine. That conduct is protected by the general law. On a broad view all of his posts are in respect of political matters, bearing on important topics of social policy and his personal commentary on the makeup of his community. Further, many of the posts directly concern government policy and bear the direct character of political communication.
2. By this proceeding a clear determination of the proper boundaries of the Board's power to regulate a medical professional's expression of personal convictions and belief in the public square is engaged. The Board assumes its power. It did not even address it in chief even though the question was opened. The Board has invited this matter by undertaking a complicated forensic trawl of places where Dr Kok was known to post and collating a very large number of posts that it says support its allegation of professional misconduct. On a fair reading of these posts, they are public comment made in a personal capacity on legitimate matters of political and religious expression and very few (if any) of the posts fall within the notion of professional conduct. Dr Kok readily and frankly accepted that in some of his posts he used inappropriate language (and has assured the tribunal that he would not express himself in that way in the future). That acceptance, only bears relevance to any regulated conduct.
3. Dr Kok's case is that there is no regulated conduct here.
4. A medical professional must be recognised as a multi-faceted individual human being who has a substantial identity outside of medical practice. Dr Kok submits that professional obligations must be determined in a way that does not overextend into the personal, cultural, religious and political spheres of a practitioner's life which are not reasonably proximate to the practice of medicine.
It was submitted for Dr Kok that in other disciplinary proceedings under the same legislation in this Tribunal, the issues surrounding freedom of speech rights of the practitioner had only been faintly raised and were not fully argued. It was also submitted that in some cases where the Tribunal had found that issues of freedom of speech were not relevant, these decisions were wrong.
The Tribunal considered each of the principles relied upon by Dr Kok in this respect.

[38]

Statutes are construed, where constructional choices are open, so that they do not encroach upon fundamental rights and freedoms at common law. The common law presumption against the parliamentary intention to infringe upon such rights and freedoms has been described as an aspect of a "principle of legality" which governs the relationship between parliament, the executive and the courts. The presumption is of long standing and has been restated over many years. It can be taken to be a presumption of which those who draft legislation, regulations and by-laws are aware. To apply it is to act conformably with legislative intention as explained by this Court in Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld).
Relevantly, the construction of s 667(1)(9)(XVI) is informed by the principle of legality in its application to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a long-established common law freedom. It has been linked to the proper functioning of representative democracies and on that basis has informed the application of public interest considerations to claimed restraints upon publication of information. It is never more powerful than when it involves the discussion and criticism of public authorities and institutions, be they legislative, executive or judicial. An example of its strength in that context is the common law impediment to local authorities and public authorities suing for defamation. The "paramount importance" accorded to freedom of expression and of criticism of public institutions has also played a part in the development of the principles of the law of contempt. It played a part in the reasoning of this Court in Davis v The Commonwealth in the characterisation, for constitutional purposes, of legislation said to be incidental to a substantive head of power. It was also identified as a material consideration in similar reasoning adopted by Mason CJ in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills. On the question whether a law could be said to be reasonably proportional and therefore incidental to a head of power, Mason CJ said:

[65]

The Board also relied upon the decision in Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23; (2019) 267 CLR 373 ('Banerji'). The Board submitted that in that case, the High Court was required to consider a statutory public sector Code of Conduct for public sector employees and the constitutional right to freedom of political communication. A former public sector employee had argued that conduct in communicating the offending information could not be misconduct under the statutory code of conduct, as the former employee had the right to freedom of political communication. The Court found that the legislative purpose of the Code of Conduct was to ensure that employees behaved in a way that upholds the public service values and the integrity and good reputation. The maintenance and protection of an apolitical and professional public service was a significant purpose consistent with the system of representative and responsible government mandated by the Constitution.
In Banerji, the Court stated at [28]:
1. In the result, the respondent's implied freedom argument amounts in effect to saying that, despite the fact that her conduct in broadcasting the "anonymous" tweets was conduct which failed to uphold the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS, Parliament was precluded from proscribing the conduct because its proscription imposed an unjustified burden on the implied freedom of political communication. To say the least, that is a remarkable proposition.
In response, it was submitted for Dr Kok that in relation to Fidge, the Court had been dealing with a challenge by the practitioner to section 178 of the National Law, and the Court found that section 178 of the National Law did not breach the implied freedom.[10] The issue in relation to section 193 of the National Law applications under the National Law was therefore not resolved.
In relation to Banerji, it was submitted for Dr Kok that the facts in that case were very different to the present case. In Banerji, the employee in the course of employment, by anonymous communication on social media, was critical of departments and policies of the government. It was submitted that the right of freedom of political communication operates in a different way on different facts to the present case.
Assuming in the present case that the National Law, and in particular the provisions of the National Law relied upon in the present case, do effectively burden the implied freedom of political communication, the Tribunal must next consider whether the purpose of the law is compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.
For the same reasons as stated in [105] of Fidge extracted above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the purpose of the provisions of the National Law before this Tribunal in this case are compatible with the maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.
The Tribunal next needed to consider whether the law is reasonably appropriate and adapted to advance that legitimate object in a manner compatible with maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government. The Tribunal is satisfied in this case that the relevant provisions of the law before us are reasonably appropriate and adapted, or put in another way proportionate, to advance the legitimate object in a manner compatible with maintenance of the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.
As an aside, while the Tribunal accepts there were significant differences in the present case to the matter of Banerji, there were also similarities and equivalencies. The present matter related to laws regulating the conduct of health professionals licensed by the State and in particular alleged unprofessional conduct and professional misconduct. The Banerji case related to laws regulating public sector employees and, in particular, in relation to alleged misconduct in employment.

[73]

Dr Kok submitted that there is authority for VCAT being a public authority for the purpose of the application of the Charter. The Tribunal was referred to Sabet v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2008] VSC 346; (2008) 20 VR 414 ('Sabet'), which stated that the Medical Practitioners Board, as it then existed, was a "public authority" within the meaning of s 4(1)(b) of the Charter because it was established by statute and it had functions which were regulatory in nature, for which it received public funding. In exercising its powers under s 40(1)(c) of the Charter, although it was a tribunal, it was acting in an administrative capacity, and therefore it was a public authority to which s 38 of the Charter applied.
It was submitted on the basis of applying the reasoning in Sabet, that the Tribunal would be able to form the view that it was exercising an administrative power in this disciplinary proceeding and the Charter rights are therefore engaged. Dr Kok therefore submitted that the Tribunal was obliged when construing paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of professional misconduct in section 5 of the National Law, to read (or interpret) the definitions subject to these rights under the Charter.
The submissions of the Board in relation to the Charter were, in summary, as follows:
1. There is authority for the proposition that VCAT is a public authority for the purpose of the Charter;
2. If the Tribunal was of the view that it was a public authority exercising administrative functions, it would be obliged to give proper consideration to the Charter rights;
3. Such consideration would not change the ultimate outcome in the present case;
4. The impact of the legislation on Dr Kok is only because he is a registered practitioner. As noted in Kemp, there are benefits and burdens to being a registered practitioner. There is no right to be a medical practitioner, so it is difficult to say that a person has a right to do some things as a medical practitioner;
5. Once consideration is given to the balancing of private and public rights, rather than there being an absolute right, the application of the legislation is more orthodox;
6. Dr Kok could have expressed himself in a way that did not contravene the National Law. There were ways of saying everything, which was not slurring, degrading or demeaning or did not reduce public confidence in the profession;
7. The rights claimed by Dr Kok are not unqualified.
Although, the Board did not fully argue its case on the application of the Charter, for the purpose of this proceeding and considering the apparent concession by the Board in this case, that the Charter applied to this Tribunal as it is a public authority and acting in an administrative capacity, the Tribunal accepts that it should give proper consideration to the Charter rights highlighted by Dr Kok's submissions in making findings of fact and characterising Dr Kok's conduct.

[77]

A number of these matters have been dealt with earlier in these reasons and we will not repeat what we have said. The Tribunal specifically notes the following matters:
1. The Tribunal has assessed each post individually and will discuss each of the posts below. Some posts are unclear or ambiguous or we have been unable to establish the relevant and necessary context;
2. In examining each post, we have first considered whether the post is as described in the Notice of Allegations, including that it fits within the type of offending conduct alleged for that post. If a post is not as described in the relevant allegation in the Notice of Allegations, we have considered it no further;
3. The Tribunal has considered how directly the post relates to the description of the offending conduct in the Notice of Allegations;
4. The Tribunal has in the case of each post considered Dr Kok's rights under the Charter and whether these rights are engaged. The Tribunal has balanced the private and public interests in assessing each post. The Charter rights under sections 14, 15, 16(2), 18 and 19 have been considered in relation to each post.
The Board has grouped the posts according to the relevant aspect of the allegation and particulars to which they relate, save that there are some posts which relate to more than one of the allegation grounds and/or particulars. There was some dispute between the parties as to whether the Tribunal needed to reach a conclusion as to the meaning of each post. The Tribunal is satisfied that to determine whether the post supports the relevant aspect of the allegation and the relevant particular, it does need to understand the meaning or possible meanings of each post. Dr Kok gave evidence as to the context and meaning of each post. This evidence is not conclusive, but does give context and, in some circumstances, contained concessions or statements which allows greater certainty for a meaning to be given to a post.
As the Board has the burden of proof in this matter, if the Tribunal could not be comfortably satisfied of the meaning of a post, either as the language or context was unclear or there were equally open alternative meanings, then the Tribunal has reached a conclusion that the Board has not discharged its burden in relation to that post.
The process of considering the posts in this proceeding, is not to make any judgements of the posts beyond the Board's allegations and particulars, including the relevant parts of the Codes of Conduct and the National Law. Whether the Tribunal does or does not find that a particular post supports the allegation and/or particulars, should not be seen as any sort of approval or disapproval of the conduct outside of the strict types of findings we are required to make. Similarly, a post may not support an allegation or particular in the circumstances of this case, but that does not necessarily mean that such a post could not do so in different circumstances. Our findings are limited to the circumstances of the present case.

[84]

The witness statement continued:
1. While - as discussed below - many of these comments reflect my convictions about the topics of abortion and treatment of gender dysphoria, I acknowledge that the language used was unnecessary to communicate these views. I have removed these posts where possible and I believe I have not used such language again.
2. Specifically, I acknowledge that it is not appropriate to apply pejorative labels to health practitioners and providers. I would refrain from such pejorative labelling of health practitioners if I were to return to medical practice in the future. When speaking against medical practices to which I object, I would direct my criticism at the practices themselves rather than the people who practice them.
Later in his witness statement, Dr Kok stated, as follows:
1. As a Christian, I believe that life and personhood begin at conception. I consider that there is no biological basis to regard a human foetus as anything other than a unique human person who is as entitled as any other human person to have his or her life preserved and protected. I believe that aborting a baby is unjustly destroying the life of a vulnerable human, and can accurately be described as an act of killing. I see no difference between the abortion of a foetus and the intentional homicide of any other human being, apart from the size of the victim.
2. Surgical abortions involve the physical destruction and dismemberment of a living foetus. Accordingly, I believe that it is appropriate and truthful for medical practitioners, when describing abortion, to shed light on its inherently violent and life-ending character, using language that is appropriate to the circumstances.
3. Knowing the scale on which abortion happens, for example more than half a million every year in the United States, I consider this a grievous atrocity being committed by our society and believe it is right to use strong language to call peoples' attention to it.
4. I abhor the way our society conceals the truth about abortion by using deceitful euphemisms such as "reproductive choice" and "family planning", and studiously avoiding any discussion of the gruesome details. This whitewashing of abortion only further dehumanises pre-born children, and renders us insensitive to the ongoing crime against humanity that proceeds in our midst, with our consent.
5. I understand that women sometimes consider abortions when faced with difficult life circumstances, but I reject the idea that killing a fellow human being is ever an acceptable solution in difficult life circumstances. Indeed, I find this idea morally repugnant. I believe that far fewer women would contemplate having abortions if not for the above-mentioned society-wide whitewashing of the subject.
6. While I acknowledge that in some extreme cases the life of the mother may be endangered in a pregnancy before foetal viability - in which case, I believe the preservation of life should be the priority - I recognise no other circumstances where it is morally permissible to terminate a pregnancy.
7. While I accept that abortion has been legalised in Australia, I believe this is wrong. I think that in a just society abortion should be illegal and people who performed abortions would be subject to the same criminal penalties as people who are convicted of homicide. I have marched in many pro-life rallies in Melbourne.
8. In 2002, during obstetrics training in fifth year medicine, a lecturer at the Royal Women's Hospital instructed us that any time a pregnant woman attends a medical consultation, we must consider that there are two patients in the room: the woman and the pre-born child. This statement has stuck in my mind throughout my medical career. I believe that it is contrary to the core ethics of medicine to arrange the killing of a patient, to whom one has a duty of care.
9. Because participating in or contributing to abortion violates the Hippocratic Oath - which states "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy" - I believe it has no place in medicine, which is a profession which seeks to preserve rather than terminate life. I perceive a cognitive dissonance in modern medical practice, where doctors on the one hand advise pregnant women to avoid alcohol and sushi for the sake of their babies, and on the other hand support and participate in abortion. I am personally unable to reconcile this moral contradiction.
10. In general practice, I very seldom had to deal directly with abortion and therefore found that my strongly-held views about abortion caused no difficulties from day to day. On the rare occasions when I saw patients who were contemplating having an abortion, I did not convey moral disapproval and I did not impede them from acting upon their own decisions.
Dr Kok told the Tribunal that he had heard a little about acts of violence commitment in the USA against people who provided abortion treatment and he would not want anyone to read his words and commit a crime.
Dr Kok's outline of submissions stated at [12(a)], that Dr Kok sought to influence others by expressing his views in relation to abortion. The submission states:

[87]

In post 1, Dr Kok states "Piper speaks to the issue of using a medicine / vaccine derived from the desecration of a murdered human being. Praise God for his wisdom and clarity of though!"[11] The Post attaches an article entitled "Can I Take a Vaccine Made from Aborted Babies?".
The post was made in the circumstance of an assumption that had arisen that a cell line, HEK293, was derived from a medically aborted foetus in the 1970s. The scientific evidence that this conclusion is any more than an assumption is unclear.
One of the early COVID-19 vaccines used the HEK293 cell line in its production.
The Board's position is that to refer to a legally performed medical abortion as a murdered human being is to equate abortion with murder and denigrate, demean and slur medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to their patients.
Dr Kok gave evidence that he views abortion as the intentional killing of a human being inside the womb and it is a grave moral wrong. He stated that he accepted that in relation to a number of posts relating to the performance of abortions by medical practitioners, that although his intention had not been to demean other medical practitioners, he was discourteous and what he said could be seen as denigrating and demeaning. In relation to post 1, Dr Kok stated in his evidence that it was not appropriate for a doctor to speak publicly using the word 'murder' in relation to abortion.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok conceded that the use of the word 'murdered' was inappropriate.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.3, being that Dr Kok by making this post failed to behave professionally, courteously and respectfully to other medical practitioners.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far as it refers to abortion being murder, falls within particular (v)(A)(I)(1) as it equates abortion with murder and thereby denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients under Allegation 1(i)(A). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[90]

Dr Kok in cross-examination said that the term 'sick burn' means a great comment. He said that he was commenting on what the man in the video said, not the title of the video. Dr Kok stated that taken in context, the post was not an attack on medical practitioners involved in abortion treatment. Dr Kok stated that the post is critical of the process of babies killed in abortion clinics and comments on the Black Lives Matter movement. He told the Tribunal that the post is pointing out that the lives of black babies do not matter in abortion.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok submitted that in the post, he is expressing his views and beliefs about abortion. The medical people he is referring to in the post were the individuals standing outside a hospital in scrubs who were supporting the 'Black Lives Matter' movement and the video was of a black man challenging these people about whether the lives of aborted black children matter.
The Board submitted that it does not appear that Dr Kok has made the same concession as to expressions such as killing babies, as he made regarding murder, slaughter and massacre of babies.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.3, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to behave professionally, courteously and respectfully to other medical practitioners.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok's post approved of the phase Babies That Are Killed In The Abortion Clinics, equates doctors who provide medical abortion treatment to patients as baby killers and that this denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients under Allegation 1(i)(A). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[95]

In post 4, Dr Kok attached or linked to an article, entitled 'Nation That Kills 3,000 Babies A Day Feels Morally Superior To Slaveowners from 200 Years Ago'. The post refers to a nation that kills 3,000 babies a day. The nation referred to appears to be the United States of America. The article itself makes it clear that the killing of babies relates to abortions. Post 5 is a duplicate of Post 4, save that it was published on a different date.
The Board's position is that the reference to abortion being 'killing babies', equates abortion with murder and denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients.
Dr Kok states that the article was from a well-known Christian satirical website. The political context of the article was the Black Lives Matter protests following the George Floyd incident in 2020.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that Dr Kok was expressing his views and beliefs about abortion by sharing an article from a Christian satirical website.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok attaching or linking the article to his post, without comment, is a form of approval of the content of the article. Although the article refers to abortion being killing babies, the entities which the article is taking aim at are the 'Nation' which allows the abortions to occur and protesters who support abortion.
While this may, by extension, appear to be a criticism of doctors who perform abortions, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the article and title are sufficiently clear in identifying doctors who perform medical abortions as the subject of the post to justify a finding that the post denigrates, demeans or slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients. The post is more appropriately classified as political comment.
The Tribunal was not comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct.
The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that posts 4 and 5, support Allegation 1(i)(A) and in particular (v)(A)(I) of the ANOA.

[97]

In post 7, Dr Kok states, 'Having endorsed the industrial-scale massacre of babies, by doctors, under the guise of 'health care', there is no principled basis upon which we as a society can object to doctor-assisted suicide'.
The Board's position is that referring to abortions as a massacre of babies, equates abortion with murder by medical practitioners and denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients.
Dr Kok told the Tribunal that the use of the term industrial scale massacre of babies was inappropriate and discourteous phrasing about other practitioners.
In written submissions Dr Kok submitted he was expressing his views and beliefs about abortion, drawing parallels between abortion laws and practices and doctor-assisted suicide.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including sections 4.2. to 4.2.3, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to behave professionally and courteously to other medical practitioners, as the post implied that medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients, were engaged in industrial scale massacre of babies and thereby the murder of babies.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far as it refers to abortion being the massacre of babies, falls within particular (v)(A)(I)(2) as it equates abortion with a massacre of babies by doctors and the murder of babies and thereby denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients as described under Allegation 1(i)(A). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[98]

In Post 8, Dr Kok states, 'What's wrong with capital punishment for serial contract-killers anyway?'.[16] Dr Kok made this post in the context of an earlier post where he had attached an article about a person who had been denied entry into Australia. The article stated that the person had in a book posed the question, 'why doctors who perform abortions are not executed and asks why women or men who request the procedure are not charged with murder'.[17]
The Tribunal is satisfied that Dr Kok was indicating in the post that doctors who provide medical abortion treatment are the equivalent of serial contract killers, which is that they murder people for payment.
Dr Kok's evidence to the Tribunal in relation to this phrase was that it was inappropriate for him to use this description about other doctors, he regretted making the comment and he was sorry about it. Dr Kok told the Tribunal that he has strong views about abortion being immoral as a Christian and believed he was required to speak out about this issue. However, he accepted that the use of language such as serial killers was inappropriate.
In written submissions Dr Kok submitted he was expressing his views and beliefs about abortion, nearly nine years ago. He now accepts that the manner of communication was inappropriate and that he regretted making the statement.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including sections 4.2. to 4.2.3, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to behave professionally and courteously to other medical practitioners.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far, as it refers to abortion being performed by serial killers, falls within particular (v)(A)(I)(2) as it equates medical practitioners who perform abortions with contract serial killers and therefore murders for payment and in doing so denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients as described under Allegation 1(i)(A). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[104]

Allegation 1(i)(B) provides that between 20 May 2010 and 15 October 2021, Dr Kok's posts denigrated, demeaned and slurred medical practitioners he disagrees with, including medical practitioners who recognise and treat gender dysphoria. Particular (v)(A)(II) provides that the posts denigrated, demean and slur medical practitioners who recognise and treat gender dysphoria, including referring to the treatment of gender dysphoria as "medical butchery", genital mutilation" and "sterilising disfigurement to healthy young bodies".
Dr Kok's evidence in his witness statement on transgender issues, included the following: [21]
1. I believe that the human species consists of two sexes. I regard this as a simple, settled, biological fact. I believe that gender corresponds to sex and accordingly there are two genders, not a multiplicity or a spectrum of genders. I reject the decoupling of gender from sex that occurred in the late twentieth century, following the theories of John Money.
2. Besides being biological fact, I believe that Christian doctrine based on the Bible does not permit belief in more than two sexes or more than two genders. Furthermore, I do not think that Christian doctrine permits the concepts of transgenderism or gender transition.
3. My whole medical training, including my general practice training in 2008-2010, did not include any teaching about transgenderism or gender transitioning that I can recall. Throughout my medical training and my medical career, it would have been absurd to entertain such ideas as men having periods and pap smears, pregnancy in men, and women requiring prostate examinations. I have no memory of such things ever being mentioned in a professional setting.
4. On the contrary, we always proceeded on the basis of "men's health" being concerned with penises and prostates, and "women's health" being concerned with menstrual issues, cervical screening, and pregnancy. When discussion of transgender ideas became very prominent in society around 2015 in the context of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's highly publicised gender transition, I considered them ridiculous and dangerous.
5. I became increasingly flabbergasted as time went on and it appeared that significant sections of society were beginning to take these kinds of ideas seriously.
6. I became alarmed when I became aware of the extent to which gender transitioning, especially gender transitioning of children, was rapidly becoming accepted and practised within the medical profession. I instinctively saw this as reckless, ideologically-driven, unscientific and harmful. On bioethics grounds, I considered it unethical that doctors would medicate and perform major surgery on people where there is no physical pathology.
7. I started doing my own reading into the subject and was relieved to find that many doctors in Australia and internationally likewise opposed the practice of gender transitioning, and were speaking out about it. I was also relieved to find that well-reasoned and evidence based arguments were being made against it.
8. Based on my reading - as discussed below in paragraphs 117 onward - I saw that there is no proper evidence-base to say that transitioned people will have better long-term mental and physical health than non-transitioned people. I saw no proof that suicide will be prevented by administering puberty blockers to children. To the contrary, I became aware of the solid evidence base that in the absence of medical intervention, gender dysphoria will desist in a majority.
9. I also became aware of the evidence showing that gender dysphoria is very often comorbid with complex psychiatric issues, and that significant psychiatric problems, including suicide, persist after medical transitioning.
10. Because of my view that these medical interventions were very dangerous, and I could see that there was considerable pushback against them from within the profession, I felt compelled to also speak against them in my own personal circles, including on social media.
11. I also felt compelled to speak out against the ideology because I saw the harmful effects it was having on society, especially children. I was aware of such things as "drag queen story hour", the so-called "Safe Schools" programme, and controversies about toilets and changerooms. Our son once brought home a book from his primary school library called "Heather has Two Mummies". I was horrified that my then seven year-old child could be exposed to adult concepts of sexuality in this fashion.
12. While I was aware that criticising these practices meant criticising the practices of other doctors, I felt justified in doing this because of the seriousness of the matter and I felt safe in the knowledge that other doctors - such as Drs. David Van Gend and John Whitehall - were speaking out in ways that were much more open and public than social media, in publications such as Quadrant and the Spectator.
13. I also felt justified in openly protesting these treatments, knowing that there have always been doctors who have publicly protested against other controversial medical practices such as routine male circumcision, cosmetic labiaplasty, and what has been termed "asian blepharoplasty". As already stated, I now acknowledge that in several instances I went too far by applying pejorative labels to health practitioners. I consider that criticism of certain medical practices is acceptable provided no personal attacks are made and the criticism is directed solely at the practices.
14. My medical understanding of this topic was influenced by the information provided by physician and endocrinologist Michael K. Laidlaw MD, in articles published by the Public Discourse and a letter to the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism that he coauthored with four other physicians. Laidlaw wrote about the lack of evidence and the medical risks associated with puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones, including sexual dysfunction, infertility, osteoporosis and cognitive impairment. He observed that gender dysphoria will resolve without medical intervention in the majority of children, and regards the medical interruption of puberty as "an unethical medical experiment with both known and unknown harms". Laidlaw stated that "I could not in good conscience recommend these treatments to any child or adolescent".
15. My understanding of the topic from a psychiatric perspective was strongly influenced by essays written by psychiatrist Paul McHugh in 2004 and 2015. McHugh argued convincingly that gender dysphoria is a psychiatric condition analogous to anorexia nervosa that should be treated with psychotherapy rather than hormones and surgery, and that the current practice of medically transitioning patients with this condition is a passing "craze".
16. My views about this subject were further solidified after reading a 2019 article by an American paediatric physician, Dr. Monica Robles, in which Robles argued that gender transition treatments lack evidence, violate the dignity of patients, and amount to "the mutilating of genitals"; and a 2017 article by British surgeon (now CEO of the International Christian Medical and Dental Association), Dr. Peter Saunders, in which Saunders asserted that gender transition treatments are "not only clinically inappropriate but an abuse of professional privilege." I shared these two articles on my Facebook page; the Applicant has subsequently taken issue with comments I made in connection with both of them.
Dr Kok gave some general evidence as to his posts regarding gender identity. This evidence included that he believes that:
1. Humans are made specifically as male and female. He does not accept gender is meaningfully separate from sex assignment;
2. He does not regard that someone can be male sex but be a woman;
3. He does not accept that there are more than two sexes;
4. His views are based on his personal knowledge, speaking to several dozen other doctors and from reading;
5. Dr Kok acknowledged that people who experience gender dysphoria have a mismatch between how they feel and their own bodies. He stated that such feelings are not immoral;
6. He stated that he believed it was immoral to actively seek to change sex and immoral to seek to help someone to do so;
7. Dr Kok wrote the posts about gender identity because he believes there is a transgender ideology and that it is dangerous. He believes that gender transition is unethical and harmful to people. Dr Kok raised the issue from a Christian point of view and from a medical ethics point of view;
8. Dr Kok stated that his intention was not to denigrate, demean or slur medical practitioners or LGBQTI people. He accepted that it was not appropriate to denigrate, demean or slur a doctor or any other person.
In his outline of closing submissions, it was submitted that Dr Kok sought to influence others by expressing his views about gender identity issues. At [12(c)], the submissions state:

[106]

At Schedule 1 to the respondent's outline of closing submissions, it is relevantly submitted as follows:
1. Post 13 (TB101) is Dr Kok expressing his views and beliefs about gender identity and social commentary by sharing a meme that made four points. The third point stated, 'Being one sex but thinking you're the other is a psychological disorder'. Dr Breakey said at [57] of his report (TB912) that gender dysphoria is 'a descriptor for the psychological disorder in point 3' and that it was accurate to state that 'having a fixed idea contrary to biological fact is a psychological disorder' and gives examples of anorexia nervosa and obsessive compulsive disorder'. Dr Kok said in cross examination that it is his opinion that this is a psychological disorder and acknowledged that this view is inconsistent with the diagnostic manual DSM. The fourth point stated, 'Mandating a widespread enabling of a psychological disorder is sociopathy'. Dr Breakey noted at [58] of his report that he read the fourth point as referring to the rapidity within which some gender clinics have progressed children and adults down the path of gender transition. Dr Wilson described point 4 at [47] of his report (TB1052) as 'questionable' and suggested that a legitimate point of discussion is the exploration of underlying causes to an adolescent's experience of gender distress. Dr Kok's reading of the fourth point was that it was about 'social and legal impositions in relation to pronouns, female changerooms, female sport, education of children, and so on'. The use of the word 'mandating' in the post supports Dr Kok's reading - the post was not about, and did not denigrate, medical practitioners.
2. The tribunal heard evidence about whether, clinically speaking, a person experiencing gender distress suffers from a psychological disorder. Professor Zajac said in his first report that following declassification in ICD11 'transgender or gender diverse is part of the natural spectrum of human diversity' (TB698). In oral evidence he explained that gender incongruence is "when the person thinks their gender doesn't match their sex" and that gender dysphoria is "a person like that who has psychological distress based on that issue" Gender dysphoria remains in the diagnostic manual of psychological disorders. The point of distinction, according to the current diagnostic criteria between incongruence and dysphoria is the distress experienced with that incongruence. Professor Zajac noted that "everyone with gender dysphoria by definition has some psychological issues", and acknowledged that "most people with gender incongruence have gender dysphoria". Dr Wilson said at [43] of his report (TB1051) that sex is immutable and a person who strongly believes they are the opposite sex by definition has 'disordered thinking'. Dr Breakey agreed that gender incongruence in and of itself did not constitute a disorder under DSM, though he contrasted how the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder was accompanied by a substantial body of scientific research which he considered was lacking in the context of the classification of gender incongruence.

[114]

In cross-examination, Dr Kok when asked if point 3 of Post 13 was inconsistent with current medical practice in Australia, he replied that it was inconsistent with the DSM-4. When he was asked whether it was also inconsistent with all other medical guidelines, he replied that it was as far as he knew. Dr Kok denied that the statement in the post was derogatory to people experiencing gender incongruence.
Later in cross-examination, Dr Kok stated that in his opinion gender incongruence is a psychological disorder and this was the universal medical opinion during his medical training. He accepted that the term psychological disorder had medical connotations. Dr Kok also stated that the post was a very strong criticism of an ideology and social movement of which the medical component is one component.
Dr Kok's written submissions refer to evidence of Dr Wilson stating that sex is immutable and a person who strongly believes they are the opposite sex by definition has 'disordered thinking'. It was also submitted that while Dr Breakey had agreed that gender incongruence did not constitute a disorder under the DSM, he stated the change in the DSM had not been accompanied by a substantial body of research as was the case when homosexuality was declassed as a disorder.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that he was expressing his views and beliefs about gender identity and social commentary by sharing a meme. It was submitted that Dr Breakey had stated in his report that 'having a fixed idea contrary to biological fact is a psychological disorder'.[24]
The Tribunal finds that the current DSM-4 does not include gender incongruence or a similar presentation as a psychological or psychiatric disorder. Gender incongruence may be part of a broader presentation which, includes psychological distress.
The Tribunal finds that the statement, being one sex but thinking you're the other is a psychological disorder, is describing a person with transgender identity as suffering from a mental health disorder. Dr Kok has therefore stated that a presentation which is not currently defined, by the DSM-5, as a disorder for medical practice in Australia is a disorder.[25]
The next comment in Post 13 is that mandating a widespread enabling of a psychological disorder is sociopathy.[26]
The Board's case is that this comment refers to medical practitioners enabling transgender people in their alleged psychological disorder. As discussed above, being transgender is not a recognised psychological disorder in Australia under the DSM-5.
Dr Kok's witness statement stated:[27]

[116]

Dr Kok argued that he was not commenting on medical practice or other medical practitioners, when posting this meme.
In cross-examination, Dr Kok stated that point 4 of the post was aimed at part of a broader social movement and ideology. When it was put to Dr Kok that sociopathy was a nasty description, Dr Kok replied that it was a strong condemnation, but it was not targeted at medical practitioners. Dr Kok conceded that medical practitioners were covered by point 4, but denied that he was saying health practitioners who provide gender affirming care were sociopaths. Dr Kok said that this was an unfair reading of the post, as the fourth part was aimed society wide, including media, bathrooms, pronouns and parenting. He agreed that medical care was one aspect of the interventions. Dr Kok conceded that he believed that gender affirming care was enabling. When it was put to Dr Kok that point 4 was a slur towards a group of people including medical practitioners, he stated that he did not agree. He was making a strong criticism of the ideology and social movement of which the medical component was only one part.
When Dr Kok was asked whether he agreed that he should try to avoid giving avoidable offence online, he stated that he weighs up the risks against the necessity of the situation. In this case, he came down on the side of using the term sociopathy.
Dr Zajac gave evidence that it is not correct to call gender incongruence a psychological disorder and to refer to 'sociopathy' is negative and unhelpful.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that Dr Kok was expressing his views and beliefs about gender identity. It was also submitted that Dr Breakey had noted in his report that he had read the statement, 'Mandating a widespread enabling of a psychological disorder as sociopathy' as referring to the rapidity within which some gender clinics progress children and adults down the path of gender transition. Dr Kok submitted that the post was not about and did not denigrate medical practitioners.
The Board submitted that the word sociopathy was a highly emotive and inappropriate term, as it has connotations of mental illness and bad faith. It is likely to arouse contempt towards practitioners enabling gender affirming care.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the meme is inclusive of medical treatment provided to transgender people by medical practitioners and is a central aspect of the meme. The Tribunal is also comfortably satisfied that the post implies that medical practitioners who diagnose and treat gender dysphoria themselves have a disorder.
The post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 5.2, being that Dr Kok by this post implies that medical practitioners who diagnose and treat gender dysphoria themselves have a disorder.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the comment implies that medical practitioners who diagnose and treat gender dysphoria themselves have a disorder in Post 13 and therefore denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who recognise and treat gender dysphoria and therefore supports allegation 1(i)(B) and Particular (v)(A)(II) of the ANOA. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[119]

Dr Wilson's evidence was that a crime against humanity was not a good description of gender transition treatment. Dr Zajac gave evidence that the phrase would not be considered a reasonable part of debate between colleagues.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that Dr Kok was expressing his views and beliefs about gender identity and a political comment about proposed legislation concerning conversion practices. It was also submitted that Dr Wilson had stated that there is 'significant, legitimate concerns around how conversion therapy legislation impacts doctors' and that it was 'perfectly foreseeable' that the transition of children will in the future be seen to have caused significant harm.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the reference to practices that cause permanent, brain- and bone-altering, sterilising disfigurement of health young bodies, is a reference to Dr Kok's view of the nature of treatment for gender dysphoria. This gender dysphoria treatment is legal and part of medical practice in Victoria.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.3, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to behave professionally, courteously and respectfully to other medical practitioners.
There is no allegation by the Board and no finding by this Tribunal that Dr Kok should not be able to engage in political debate regarding proposed laws. The issue with this post is with the statement by Dr Kok implying that medical practitioners who engage in currently accepted medical procedures are committing crimes against humanity.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the description of medical treatment for gender dysphoria and the comment that such practices will in future be considered to be crimes against humanity, denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who recognise and treat gender dysphoria and therefore support allegation 1(i)(B) and Particular (v)(A)(II) of the ANOA. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonable and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[127]

Dr Kok in his oral evidence stated that the article he posted was critical of the medical practice and uses strong language. He then added his gloss by the use of the term butchery. Dr Kok told the Tribunal that he should not have used that word to describe this practice, the word was inflammatory and he would not use it again. By this comment, Dr Kok has referred to treatment of gender dysphoria as medical butchery.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that Dr Kok was expressing his views and beliefs about gender identity by sharing an article by a paediatric critical care physician and being critical of the physical transition of children. He conceded that it was inappropriate to use the term medical butchery. It was also submitted that Dr Wilson's report states that the term 'butchery' in medicine can refer to 'medical procedures that are carried out despite being unnecessary, or carried out poorly, and lead to a negative physical outcome.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including sections 4.2. to 4.2.3, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to behave professionally and courteously to other medical practitioners by describing medical practitioners who engage in treatment of gender dysphoria as engaging in medical butchery.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the use of the term medical butchery for legal and medically acceptable treatment for gender dysphoria denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who recognise and treat gender dysphoria. The post therefore supports Allegation 1(i)(B) and Particular (v)(A)(II) of the ANOA. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[130]

In his oral evidence, Dr Kok said that the use of the word 'crooks' in the post was inappropriate and discourteous and he has no explanation for using it. He admits that he was being discourteous to other practitioners and he should not have done it.
In his oral evidence, Dr Kok said that he believes that mutilation is the accurate technical description when unnecessarily destroying a body part. Dr Kok stated that he would hesitate to use that word in the future as it may cause offence to people undergoing the procedure.
In cross-examination, Dr Kok agreed that to refer to the outcome of the procedure to be mutilation could be upsetting to someone who had undergone the procedure. When asked if the reference to mutilation could be understood as an attack on a medical practitioner who did the procedure, Dr Kok conceded that it could be understood that way.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that he was expressing his views and beliefs about gender identity by drawing a comparison between condemnations of genital mutilation and the physical transition of children. It was submitted that Dr Kok considered the term mutilation to be appropriate but accepts that it was inappropriate to refer to medical practitioners as 'crooks'.
Dr Kok's comment equates a medical treatment which is part of accepted medical practice in Australia to genital mutilation.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including sections 4.2. to 4.2.3, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to behave professionally and courteously to other medical practitioners, implying that medical practitioners who engaged in treating gender dysphoria engaged in genital mutilation and were crooks.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok's comments, in describing gender dysphoria treatment by medical practitioners as genital mutilation and medical practitioners involved in such treatment as crooks, denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who recognise and treat gender dysphoria. The post therefore supports Allegation 1(i)(B) and Particular (v)(A)(II) of the ANOA. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[137]

Post 19 by Dr Kok was the repost of an article from The Spectator Australia, entitled The cultural juggernaut of transgender ideology: not kids' stuff.[38]
The article describes a person wanting to be of a gender different to your assigned sex as having a psychological disorder and that they should be treated in that way. It describes the diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria as an ideology and medical practitioners who work in gender dysphoria as mad scientists. As discussed above, gender incongruency is not a psychological disorder and medical treatment for gender dysphoria is part of accepted medical treatment in Australia.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that Dr Kok was making a political comment by sharing an article written by a public figure who wrote about 'transgender ideology' and children being exposed to such discussion. It was submitted that Dr Wilson refers to this matter as of legitimate concern. The submissions also state that the post was not directed at medical practitioners, so is therefore a misreading of the post by the Board.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that by reposting the article Dr Kok was indicating his approval of it.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including sections 4.2. to 4.2.3, being that Dr Kok by this post 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. In circumstances where those practitioners are engaged in providing treatment which is part of current medical practice in Australia.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(i)(C) and particular (v)(A)(III) of the ANOA, in that it denigrated, demeaned and slurred medical practitioners who recognise that people who identify as transgender, are not suffering from a mental health condition, by referring to such medical practitioners as mad scientists and engaging in transgender ideology. The clear implication is that these medical practitioners are not acting in accordance with current medical practice. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[139]

Allegation 1(ii)(A) of the ANOA provides that between 20 May 2010 and 15 October 2021, Dr Kok's posts expressed sentiments of violence and/or made derogatory statements towards racial and religious groups. Particular (v)(B)(I) of the ANOA provides that the posts expressed sentiments of violence and/or made derogatory statements towards racial and religious groups including by endorsing/calling for violence and/or genocide towards racial and religious groups, including by calling for the colonisation of "primitive yellow people and black people", the extermination of black people, and replying supportively to a post which advocates "invit[ing] the inferior races over for a shower" in Zyklon B.
Dr Kok's evidence on the subject of race included the following in his witness statement: [39]
1. I do not consider any race to be inferior to other races.
2. As a person of Asian ethnicity and heritage, I am especially sensitive to the phenomenon where Westerners consider their progressive twenty-first century values to be self-evidently superior to the values held by more traditional cultures. I consider this attitude to be patronising and I dislike it. I also find it patronising when Western people say that other cultures need to be protected from "appropriation".
3. I believe that the concept of multiculturalism is flawed because I do not believe it is healthy in the long term for a single society to be made up of different people groups who hold on to markedly different customs, values and allegiances. I believe history has shown many times that this results in poor cohesion and is more likely to produce conflict. Accordingly, I believe that immigrants to a country should adopt that country's core values and integrate with its culture as much as possible. This is exactly what my parents encouraged us to do as they raised us in Australia.
4. Since the September 11 attacks in 2001, I have been very concerned about extremist Islam and the threat that it poses to the peace and safety of Western societies. I found the rise of ISIS deeply troubling and was very much alarmed when the Martin Place siege happened in 2014. The several terrorist attacks that occurred in Sydney and Melbourne over the next few years, and the erection of concrete bollards in my own city, caused me to feel unsafe. I do not feel animosity towards Muslim individuals, but I am concerned about the aspects of the Islamic religion which are used as a basis for violence.
5. I object to ethnic cleansing and eugenic practices, including those that are carried out by means of abortion.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that he does not consider any race to be superior to any other and believes that social cohesion is better achieved if immigrants integrate with the culture of a country rather than seeking to maintain their own customs, beliefs and allegiances. Dr Kok objects to violence and eugenics practices. It was also submitted that Dr Kok shared material to make a joke, and in some respects was expressing his personal opinion about social cohesion and news events. It was submitted that the Board has misread these posts.

[142]

In cross-examination, Dr Kok stated that he used the term ching chong in a light-hearted way about his own race. He accepted that some Asian people may not like this term. When asked whether he accepted that it was a derogatory phrase to Chinese people, he replied that he was using it as a Chinese person to reclaim the term in a light-hearted way. When Dr Kok was asked whether there was a risk that someone may not understand the phrase in the same light-hearted way in which he meant, he replied that there was a risk particularly if the phrase had come from the mouth of a person with a European background. Dr Kok stated that whether the phrase was a disrespectful way to speak about people in the community would depend on who is saying it and in what context.
The Board submitted that the phrase is a derogatory term referring to Asian people. Dr Kok not finding it offensive does not mean that it is not derogatory or that other people of Asian descent might not find it upsetting. The Board also submitted that Dr Kok had not accepted that the language was inappropriate for a registered practitioner and was unwilling to agree that he would not use the phrase in future.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that the post is self-evidently an ironic statement that ought not to be read as derogatory. It was submitted that Dr Kok is ethnically Chinese and used the term in 'a light-hearted way' and 'speaking about my own race'.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including section 3.7, being that Dr Kok failed to show respect and sensitivity for those from culturally diverse backgrounds.
The words used by Dr Kok are commonly used as a racial slur and are offensive to many people. It is implied that it was not meant as such by Dr Kok and that he was seeking to claim the word in a light-hearted way as an Australian of Chinese descent. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(ii)(A) and particular (v)(B)(I), as it is a derogatory statement towards a racial group. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with

[158]

Dr Kok, in his oral evidence, stated that his initial post was related to the terrorist attack in Flinders Street, Melbourne. He was speaking about how when there is an apparent terrorist attack and the terrorist is not identified in the media, different ideological camps hope for a different type of person to be responsible for the attack. Progressives hope it will not be a Muslim, and conservatives hope it will be a Muslim. Dr Kok states that he estimated that was how society thought about the issue.
Dr Kok said that LC had then posted a comment in response to Dr Kok's initial post. JR had posted a comment in response to LC's comment and Dr Kok then posted a comment in response to LC's comment. Dr Kok told the Tribunal that the #illridewithyou hashtag arose from the Lindt Café, Martin Place terrorist attack. The perception by some was that white Australians were racist, so Muslim's were not safe to ride alone on public transport. Dr Kok told the Tribunal that after the Martin Place attack, people expressed that they were going to ride with a Muslim person on the train, as they need me to protect them. Dr Kok said that he had used that expression in this context to affirm what his friend LC had posted. He understood that LC was saying that the terrorist attack would be said to be the fault of racist Australians. Dr Kok said his response meant that he agreed that they would encounter talk of Australian's being racist.
Dr Kok said that his post was not intended to engage with the post of JR and his post had nothing to do with JR's post, save that it followed it chronologically. Dr Kok denied he was endorsing the sentiments in JR's post. He also denied knowing what Zyklon B was.
In cross-examination, Dr Kok stated that his post was in response to LC's post not, JR's post. He denied only saying that his post was not in response to JR's post because he realised how offensive it was.
When Dr Kok was asked whether the original #illridewithyou was to be supportive towards the Islamic community in the context of Islamophobia, he replied yes, in the context that Australians are racist.
Dr Kok agreed that he could delete other people's comments on his Facebook page. He said that he had not deleted JR's comment. He does not delete comments unless there is profanity. When it was put to him that this was a genocidal comment, he replied that it was unsavoury but it was not his job to delete JR's post.
When it was put to Dr Kok that it was a bad idea for a registered medical practitioner to comment on a thread where this comment had been made, he replied that there was an unfortunate alignment of his comment next to JR's comment.
The Board alleges that Dr Kok's comment endorses the comment of JR. JR's comment contains a reference to the poison gas used in the Holocaust and inviting inferior races over for a shower. The Board submitted that Dr Kok's denial about his comment endorsing JR's comment is unpersuasive, as:
1. Grammatically it is easier to understand the post as a response to JR's post than LC's post;
2. Dr Kok's post is consistent in sentiment with JR's post as both appear to be using an attempt at very black humour to make the same broad rhetorical point.
3. Dr Kok failed to delete JR's comment;
4. Dr Kok's claim to have a subjective memory of which post he was responding to is problematic. Dr Kok said he could not remember making the posts, but could distinguish between which posts he was commenting on.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that the Board had misread the post. It was submitted that Dr Kok was replying to and endorsing another user's comment and Dr Kok utterly disassociates himself from the practices of Nazi Germany.
The comment by JR is truly appalling and no medical practitioner could in any way endorse or support such a statement. On an initial reading of the post, it does appear that Dr Kok is endorsing this sentiment.
However, as we understand the way that comments work on Facebook, a person making a comment indicates which comment in the stream of comments they are responding to. The new comment is then indented below the comment being responded to and any response to that comment is further indented.
This formatting of the comments supports Dr Kok's evidence that he was commenting on LC's comment, not JR's comment. It is clear from the evidence in this case that Dr Kok is very experienced in making online comments and would have been more than competent to make his comment in relation to the correct post.
In those circumstances and considering the seriousness of the matter, the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the Board has proven that Dr Kok's comment was responding to JR's comment and therefore was endorsing or supporting that comment. The Tribunal is concerned that Dr Kok would leave such an appalling comment on his Facebook page, when we understand that he would be able to remove it.
The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(ii)(A) and particular (v)(B)(I) of the ANOA.

[166]

Dr Kok, in his oral evidence, stated that there had been a lot of talk online about the acceptance of same sex marriage in the United States being about progress and a step forward. He had posted a map of countries which had legalised gay marriage. All African and Asian countries had not legalised same sex marriage. Dr Kok stated that he was taking a shot at people saying this was progress, as he considered this to be an arrogant attitude to non-white people. He said that the countries he is from do not agree to same sex marriage. Dr Kok considered his statement about needing to colonise these countries to be satire.
In cross-examination, Dr Kok stated that he accepted that use of the term primitive yellow and black people was offensive when used incorrectly. He said in his post it was used satirically, as a rhetorical device. He said that he was criticising that point of view. Dr Kok told the Tribunal that if he did not use words because people might hypothetically not understand what he meant, he would never use satire and would only use words in their literal way.
The Board submitted that whatever Dr Kok may have subjectively intended by his comment, the use of the words primitive yellow and black people is highly inflammatory, inappropriate and easily misconstrued. The Board submitted that the words are a derogatory way to describe Asian people or people of colour.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted Dr Kok was making a satirical comment in response to the US Supreme Court's decision to recognise same-sex marriage. Dr Kok was not advocating colonisation; the post was of satirical intent. It was submitted that the map in the post depicts countries that had legalised same-sex marriage and Dr Kok was noting that it was predominantly wealthy western nation which had legalised same-sex marriage.
While the Tribunal accepts that Dr Kok mean this comment sarcastically, whether it is humorous or not, is not the question the Tribunal must answer. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the comment was derogatory to on the basis of race, even if it was meant by Dr Kok in some sort of humorous way.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including section 3.7, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to show respect and sensitivity for those from culturally diverse backgrounds.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(ii)(A) and particular (v)(B)(I), as it is a derogatory statement towards a racial group. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[179]

In cross-examination, Dr Kok stated that it was a doctor's duty to treat Christians and people with other religious points of view and it was important to communicate respectfully about other faiths. Dr Kok conceded that his post could have been read as critical and derogatory of Islamic people generally.
The Board submitted that the post referred to Islam in inflammatory terms and that Dr Kok had agreed that the post may suggest that he held the view that all Muslims are violent and that was an inappropriate thing for a registered practitioner to say.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that the post is religious and political commentary following a major news event, being the Martin Place attack. It was submitted that the post was sharing a passage from the Bible and making a comparison between the teachings of Christianity and Islam about violence. It was noted that in Dr Kok's second statement, he said that this comment would be better expressed with a caveat, that not all Muslims are violent. He also conceded that the posts were inappropriate without the caveat.
It was submitted on behalf of Dr Kok that perhaps the caveat was implicit, confident that his and his readers understanding of his true intention as a man of committed Christian principles including love for humanity and a commitment to peace. Dr Kok had explained that after September 11, he grew 'very concerned about extremist Islam' and noted the attacks that occurred later in Melbourne or Sydney.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post's clear meaning is that the Islamic religion is not a religion of peace. The Tribunal finds that this is derogatory towards a religious group.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including section 3.7, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to have respect and sensitivity for those from culturally diverse backgrounds.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(ii)(A) and particular (v)(B)(I) as it is a derogatory statement towards racial and religious groups. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[189]

In his oral evidence, Dr Kok stated that this post related to an article about western countries' use of their aid budgets to finance family planning, including abortions, in poorer countries. Dr Kok said that the writer's argument was that western countries were paying for and perpetrating killing and culling of human beings in those countries. The writer's argument was that this was genocide. Dr Kok stated that he echoed the writer's point of view, when we send money to poorer countries for abortions and give contraceptives, we are engaging in genocide and extermination. Dr Kok stated that he was using satire and that everyone knew what he was saying. He was talking about exterminating poor people using family planning. Dr Kok stated that he thought it was fine to use the word exterminate to condemn the practice of funding abortions. When asked if he would use this word on the topic of abortions going forward, Dr Kok said it would depend on where he was speaking and he would choose his language carefully. He would probably not use the word exterminate in a public forum.
In cross-examination, Dr Kok stated that he was not saying in the post that it would be a good thing to prevent the world being overrun by black people by exterminating them. Dr Kok denied that the term overrun by black people was used in an incendiary way. He stated that it was not possible to read the use of the term exterminate and misunderstand what he meant.
When it was put to Dr Kok that the premise of his comment was that it was bad to be overrun by black people, he responded that no, he was giving voice to a position that he disagreed with. He said he was unable to make his point without this reference, as he was using it as a rhetorical device.
Dr Kok stated that he would not take back this post as it has a clear meaning.
The Board submitted that whatever Dr Kok may have subjectively intended by his post, the use of genocidal imagery is highly inflammatory, inappropriate and easily misconstrued. The Board submitted that the words are a derogatory way to describe people of colour.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was argued that Dr Kok was expressing his views and beliefs about abortion in a discussion on a Christian website. His intention was to condemn as a form of genocide, the funding of abortions in poor countries by wealthy Western Countries. It was submitted that he did this by 'giving voice to a position that I disagree with, that I'm condemning'. It was submitted that this reading of the post is apparent on its face and the post on a fair reading was not a derogatory statement about black people. It was submitted that Dr Kok had said he would be careful with this type of language and would not use the word exterminate in this way in public.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that, even if the post was intended by Dr Kok to be satirical, it was derogatory and offensive to racial groups. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(ii)(A) and particular (v)(B)(I) of the ANOA as it is a derogatory statement towards racial groups. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[196]

Post 30 is identical to Post 8 which has been dealt with in relation to a different particular above.[60]
In Post 8, Dr Kok states, What's wrong with capital punishment for serial contract-killers anyway?. Dr Kok made this post in the context of an earlier post where he had attached an article about a person who had been denied entry into Australia. The article stated that the person had questioned in a book why doctors who perform abortions are not executed and asks why women or men who request the procedure are not charged with murder.
The Board submits that by proposing capital punishment for doctors who perform abortions, Dr Kok is expressing sentiments of violence towards these practitioners and the comments is derogatory to those practitioners.
Dr Kok's evidence in his supplementary witness statement was that it would be inappropriate for Dr Kok as a medical practitioner to suggest that other doctors be subject to capital punishment.
In Dr Kok's written submissions, it was submitted that on a fair reading of this post, Dr Kok was not genuinely calling for or endorsing violence against doctors who provide abortions. The comment was the deployment of irony or hyperbole as a rhetorical device to explore the subject of loss of life through abortion.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok's post has the meaning attributed to it by the Board, that is, by proposing capital punishment for doctors who perform abortions, Dr Kok was expressing sentiments of violence towards these practitioners. The Tribunal notes Dr Kok's comments in light of past events in the United States of America, where medical staff who provided abortion treatment have been killed because of this work. While there is no suggestion that Dr Kok was proposing in any way to engage in violence, the expression of sentiments of violence may have the unfortunate outcome of encouraging others to engage in such conduct. It was also derogatory to these medical practitioners, as it indicated that they deserved to die for their work.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was expressing sentiments of violence and making derogatory statements towards medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(ii)(B) and particular (v)(B)(II) as it is a derogatory statement towards a religious groups.

[198]

Allegation 1(iii)(A) of the ANOA provides that between 20 May 2010 and 15 October 2021, Dr Kok's posts expressed views that denigrated, demeaned and/or were disrespectful of and/or derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons. Particular (v)(C)(I) of the ANOA provides that the posts expressed views regarding LGBTQI+ persons that describe homosexual orientation and transgender identity as disorders that may be addressed with therapy, defend conversion therapy and conflate sex with gender.
Allegation 1(iii)(B) of the ANOA provides that between 20 May 2010 and 15 October 2021, Dr Kok's posts expressed views that denigrated, demeaned and/or were disrespectful of and/or derogatory to the LGBTQI+ community. Particular (v)(C)(II) of the ANOA, provides that the posts expressed views regarding LGBTQI+ persons that are otherwise demeaning, disrespectful or derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons, including by:
1. suggesting the gay community is characterised by staggering promiscuity, the propensity to injecting drug use and all manner of lewd, unhygienic and unsafe sexual practices;
2. saying that Men are from Mars and women are from Venus ... all other genders you make up are from Uranus; and
3. stating that there are 5,787 genders, including 'Amermaidqueenking' and 'Acaptainmarvel'
The Tribunal refers to the material discussed in [161] to [169] above generally about transgender issues.
Dr Kok's witness statement included the following on sexual orientation:
1. I believe that the Bible very clearly teaches that homosexual conduct, which includes same-sex sexual activity and relationships, is immoral.
2. I believe that the Bible obliges Christian believers to refrain from all immoral conduct, including homosexual conduct.
3. I recognise that there are people who involuntarily experience long-term romantic and sexual attraction to members of the same sex, which is commonly described as a homosexual "orientation". I regard this as part of the fallen condition of humanity, along with all forms of sickness and suffering in the world, and I believe that it is not part of God's original design.
4. Because Christians who experience same-sex attraction are obliged to either remain sexually celibate or marry a member of the opposite sex, I believe that they are entitled to voluntarily seek and receive assistance, in the form of counselling or pastoral care, to manage their unwanted same-sex attraction. I see this as being no different from when Christians seek and receive counselling and spiritual assistance with pornography and other sexual issues.
5. I strongly opposed the Victorian Government's "Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices" legislation, especially its foreseeable effects on churches and Christian ministries. Hence, I made numerous Facebook posts while it was being debated in parliament, to alert my Christian friends to it. Some of these posts, which have been included in the Applicant's notice of allegations, shared content from Christian organisations such as the Australian Christian Lobby and The Gospel Coalition Australia.
6. As a doctor I was never asked by a patient for assistance in relation to sexual orientation. I find it impossible to imagine such a scenario ever arising. If a hypothetical patient were to tell me that they were experiencing conflict between their sexuality and their religious convictions, I would not consider this a medical matter and would probably suggest that they speak with a minister of religion about their conflict. If the hypothetical patient also suffered from a mental health disorder such as depression, I would manage this in the usual way, including referral to a mental health professional where appropriate.
7. I regard same-sex attraction as a "disorder" in the sense of being contrary to God's design for the world and for humanity, but I recognise that it is no longer seen as a disorder in psychiatric or medical terms. Hence, I have never described homosexuality as a "disorder" in a clinical setting.
8. I have read numerous accounts of Christians who have moved away from homosexual relationships into heterosexual marriages. I have at least five personal friends who experience or experienced long-term same-sex attraction and either live celibate lives or have been enabled by the grace of God to marry a member of the opposite sex.
9. I have provided care to many gay and lesbian patients without ever disclosing my personal views to them. This was no more difficult for me than providing non-judgmental care to heterosexual patients having extra-marital affairs (which I personally disapprove of) or even convicted criminals. I do not consider it my business to intrude into my patients' sexual preferences or sexual activities, other than when it is clinically necessary.
10. I provided long term care to a lesbian patient with a chronic medical condition, who confided with me in 2017 that she was experiencing a great deal of stress during the public debate at the time of the marriage plebiscite. She remained completely unaware of my personal views about the subject, and I had no difficulty providing her with sympathetic care in this context.
Dr Kok was cross-examined in general terms about his comments regarding LGBTQI+ persons and community. He stated that it was his understanding that the transgender community experiences a higher rate of mental illness and depression and that it had been reported that they had a higher level of suicide. Dr Kok conceded that persons presenting with gender incongruence often experience personal stress and trauma. He also accepted that for these reasons it was important to speak in a respectful way regarding LGBTQI+ persons and community. Dr Kokk denied that he had in any way humiliated or made fun of any part of the LGBTQI+ community. He stated that when criticising an ideology or a concept that he disagrees with, potentially people will take offence with what he says. He stated that taking offence was not the same as insulting, humiliating or slurring someone.
When Dr Kok was asked whether he accepted that to be transgender, did not mean that the person had a psychiatric condition, he replied that as defined by the DSM-5 that is correct. When Dr Kok was asked whether he accepted that DSM-5 was the statement of current practice in Victoria, Dr Kok replied that the DSM-5 is a consensus statement from the American Psychiatric Association and is widely respected by psychiatrists. Dr Kok accepted that gender incongruence was not a psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM-5.
Dr Kok's written submission included the following regarding sexual orientation at [12(b)]:

[256]

It was put to Dr Kok in cross-examination that labelling gender incongruence as a pathological, delusional belief was to say it is a psychiatric disorder. In response, Dr Kok stated that he did not write that description as a medical diagnosis. There was an overlap with medical terminology. He was not setting himself up as a psychiatrist diagnosing from his armchair. Dr Kok said that his point was that if someone is factually and biologically male and believes he is female, he has a misapprehension of reality. He told the Tribunal that it was that same type of thing that doctors see with people having misapprehensions such as anorexia nervosa or OCD.
In a follow up question, it was put to Dr Kok that his last answer was suggesting that transgenderism is a mental illness. In reply, Dr Kok stated that he believes that someone with an unshakeable fixed belief about their gender that does not correspond to reality, is the same as any other person who has a misapprehension about themselves, such as with anorexia nervosa.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post is an article published on a Christian website. He expressly identifies himself as a medical practitioner and engages in discussion on religion and social commentary. It was submitted that the article is a statement of belief as to the fundamentals of respect and care of transgender people. It was further submitted that the article attracts the free speech doctrine, the political comment doctrine, the Charter and it is not an occasion where it may be fairly said to be the words of a doctor who is not a fit and proper person to be a medical practitioner.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the article argues that transgender persons are suffering from a disorder and a pathological delusional belief. As previously discussed, gender incongruence is not a disorder in accordance with medical practice in Australia, as per the DSM-5. This labelling by Dr Kok is therefore incorrect in relation to current medical practice in Australian and was denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons.
Dr Kok has also made non-evidence based assumptions about transgender persons, being that for a great many of them, their identities and lifestyles are determined by voluntary choices and cultural winds, such as those on university campuses, to a significantly greater extent than by irresistible, internal impulses. These comments are contrary to medical practice in Australia and are denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons.
Dr Kok said that he could express that someone who identifies as transgender was confused without referring to them as having a pathological belief. Dr Kok accepted that the terms he used in the post may cause unnecessary offence as gender incongruence was not currently a diagnosis in DSM-5, so that using medical diagnosis probably is not an accurate description and he should use less medicalised words. Dr Kok stated that in future he thought it was reasonable for him to compare gender incongruence to anorexia or paranoia as no analogy is perfect and it is a helpful way to communicate ideas.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct, including section 3.7, being that Dr Kok by this post failed to respect and be sensitive to gender diversity.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iii)(A) and particular (v)(C)(I) as it is a derogatory statement. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[267]

In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post is expressing his views and beliefs about gender identity by sharing an article. It was submitted that Dr Breakey stated that the subject of the article remained male and this needed to be taken into account in any medical treatment. It was submitted that Dr Breakey did not address whether it was appropriate for a medical practitioner to make this statement, however stated that he would not have used the term sick and delusional man.
As discussed above, the Tribunal is satisfied that Dr Kok was endorsing or approving articles he posted without comment. In this case, the Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok posting the word truth about the article is an express endorsement of it.
Dr Breakey stated that he would not use the words in the post and the article to describe Bruce Jenner and that it is possible to communicate about these topics in a more appropriate way. He also agreed that when he entered public debate about this issue, he is careful to express himself in a respectful and professional way. Dr Breakey also agreed that it was possible to talk about these issues without using words such as sick and delusional.
Professor Zajac gave evidence that referring to Bruce [Caitlin] Jenner as a sick and delusional man is inaccurate and highly offensive. He also gave evidence that people experiencing gender dysphoria have a higher rate of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation and that public comments about transgender people, including by medical practitioners, can have a profound impact on transgender people. Negative comments about transgender patients and treatment can have a terrible impact on patients.
As discussed above gender incongruence is not a recognised disorder in medical practice in Australia. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok approving of the labelling of a transgender person as sick and delusional is denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons, as it indicates that gender incongruence and being transgender was a psychiatric condition, when it is not recognised as such in Australian medical practice. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iii)(A) and particular (v)(C)(I). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[275]

In relation to this post, Dr Kok in his supplementary witness statement repeated the same evidence as for Post 41, as noted above.[85]
Dr Kok in cross-examination stated that the phrasing of homosexuality as disordered sexuality should be read in a theological sense of departing from God's plan. Dr Kok accepted that disorder can be a medical term. It was put to Dr Kok that to say someone has a disordered sexuality could be understood to refer to something medically wrong with the person. Dr Kok replied that he believed that if he was clear that he was using the term in the theological way, it was ok to use.
Post 42 is within the longer online conversation about homosexuality in which post 41 also appears.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post implies that therapy can treat and may cure homosexuality. This implies that homosexually is a medical disorder. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the post was only seeking to say that homosexuality was departing from God's plan in a theological sense. The reference to therapy for the disordered condition, indicates that the post should not be read in that limited way. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok has sought to use medical expressions to imply a medical disorder to a person's sexual orientation, which is inconsistent with current medical practice.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons as it indicates that homosexual orientation was a disorder that may be addressed with therapy. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iii)(A) and particular (v)(C)(I). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[328]

Allegation 1(iv)(A) of the ANOA provides that between 20 May 2010 and 15 October 2021, Dr Kok's posts expressed views in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic response that denigrated, demeaned and/or slurred persons that accepted and/or considered it right to follow public health orders. Particular (v)(D)(I)(1) of the ANOA provides that the posts expressed views in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic response that denigrated, demeaned and/or slurred persons that accepted and/or considered it right to follow public health orders including by likening them to followers of totalitarian regimes, including Nazi Germany, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the former Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic (the former East Germany) and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (commonly known as North Korea).
The Board submitted that medical practitioners, such as Dr Kok, have a professional obligation under the Code of Conduct to promote the health of the community through disease prevention and control, education and screening. It also submitted that the relevant posts describing people who complied with public health initiatives as indicated in the previous paragraph, is highly emotive language and is to denigrate, demean and slur those people.
Dr Kok, in his witness statement, gave evidence about these matters, including the following:
1. In March 2020, I believed that a short period of lockdown (up to one month) was not unreasonable in the interests of getting the health system prepared. However, I was very concerned from the outset about the economic damage that this would cause, and I was concerned for the people who I knew would lose their jobs. My own jobless state at the time gave me additional sympathy for others who I could foresee becoming unemployed due to the shutting down of businesses deemed "non-essential".
2. As the pandemic progressed, I began to listen to various points of view about the COVID-19 virus and the political response to it. By the time Victoria's second major lockdown began in July 2020, I was persuaded that the threat posed by the virus had been exaggerated and the political response was excessive and would cause significant overall harm.
3. My family's experience of the July-November 2020 lockdown in Victoria was very unpleasant. Our son coped poorly with online schooling. We heard the same, or worse, from many of our friends. During this lockdown, my friend's daughter died from brain cancer and I was dismayed to hear my friend's account of how restricted and isolated she was towards the end of her life. A friend at our church died at a relatively young age from cancer, and was unable to be given a proper funeral. Another friend was admitted into psychiatric care as a result of the personal impact of the lockdown. A very close friend got married in rural Victoria, outside the so-called "ring of steel", but we were not permitted to attend his wedding. Someone else close to us became addicted to drugs after losing his ability to work, causing his life and family to disintegrate.
4. Aside from what we experienced and witnessed personally, we heard the public accounts of people being treated very harshly by police and many terrible stories of people being stranded or separated from loved ones due to border closures. We heard the awful story about the draconian lockdown of the residents inside Melbourne's housing commission towers, which in December 2020 were ruled to have violated their human rights. I became increasingly aware of the severe and widespread emotional, mental health and social toll inflicted by the lockdowns.
5. My views about the use of lockdowns to control COVID-19 were strongly shaped by the Great Barrington Declaration, authored by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, of Stanford University, University of Oxford and Harvard Medical School respectively, in October 2020. The declaration was co-signed by more than forty other medical and public health experts. It warned that "current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health" and recommended "adopting measures to protect the vulnerable" while "those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal". My reaction to reading this declaration was mixed; I was relieved that there was finally high level opposition to the lockdowns from health experts, but I was dismayed that many world leaders, including Australia's leaders, chose to ignore them.
6. Aside from the Great Barrington Declaration, I became aware in 2020 of medically qualified people in Australia who took an opposing view to the government's position with respect to lockdowns. I learned about an open letter to this effect written by Melbourne based urologist, Geoffrey Wells, and which was co-signed by several senior medical practitioners. I became aware of the activities of the locally-based Covid Medical Network, and its opposition to lockdown policies. I joined the mailing list of the Covid Medical Network and noted that their weekly Zoom meetings were attended by hundreds of Australian doctors and other health professionals.
7. When lockdowns returned in 2021, with the same or in some cases a greater degree of authoritarian enforcement than the previous year, I was furious. I could not believe that our governments were inflicting this cruelty upon us again, knowing how much harm the lockdowns had caused in 2020.
8. Our son's mental health deteriorated significantly during the prolonged lockdowns in both years. He became socially withdrawn and refused to participate in online schooling. In 2020 we had asked his school repeatedly to allow him to attend on site; however they refused because of the Victorian Government's restrictions. Routine is very important to our son and we knew that not being able to go to school would have a significant impact on him. When restrictions were finally lifted in October 2021, our son could not return to school as he became extremely anxious around other children. Thus, my wife is now home-schooling him and we do not know when he will be mentally capable of returning to school again.
9. In both 2020 and 2021, I was especially alarmed at the societal impacts of the government's COVID-19 response, including excessive use of force by Victoria police, the use of the military to enforce lockdowns in Sydney, the criminalisation of ordinary human interactions, the encouragement of citizens to inform on each other for breaches of rules, the derogatory and stigmatising rhetoric that was used against people who disagreed with the government's position, and the use of discrimination and exclusion to motivate compliance. I considered these kinds of things to be totalitarian, and similar in character to what was experienced in the well-known totalitarian regimes of history.
10. Very early in the pandemic, I read an article by Brendan O'Neill in Spiked magazine titled "The sickness of snitching", which denounced "Stasi"-like antisocial behaviour. When it was revealed later in 2020 that "Victorians are dobbing on their neighbours in record numbers with hundreds of thousands of calls made to police to report COVID breaches" in a 3 October 2020 article in the Age entitled "Hundreds of thousands call police to dob in coronavirus breaches", this confirmed to me and many of my friends that government lockdown policies had created a social sickness that was far more destructive than the COVID-19 sickness these policies were meant to combat. There was no question in my mind that COVID lockdowns were causing society to behave in an alarming way that paralleled totalitarian regimes.
11. I read and listened to many authors, commentators and other experts who drew parallels between the COVID-19 police-state, past communist regimes and the conditions in 1930s Germany. One of the most memorable and persuasive analyses that I listened to was the one provided by Belgian professor of psychology Mattias Desmet in mid-2021. I agreed with the proposition that governments were manipulating the public using fear, and I found this sickening.
12. I was well aware that public health orders in 2020-21 varied from state to state and country to country. There was an easily perceptible difference between the gentler approach of the NSW government and the heavy-handed approach of the Victorian government. I knew that countries such as Sweden, Brazil and Japan chose not to adopt harsh lockdown policies in 2020. I observed the United Kingdom implementing shorter and gentler lockdowns than Australian states, despite having a considerably higher prevalence of the virus. There was wide variation between US States in their implementation of measures. Medical exemptions for COVID-19 vaccine mandates were available for pregnant women in the United Kingdom but not in Australia. Victoria was the only Australian state which excluded children from public venues, including church and retail stores, on the grounds of vaccination status.
13. Likewise, I took notice as the public health orders reversed over time. For example, in early 2020 we were told that mask wearing in public was not recommended but only a few months later it became strictly compulsory in Victoria. In April 2021, the Centres for Disease Control stated that the virus could not be transmitted by someone who was vaccinated, then retracted this advice by early August.
14. I observed the Victorian Government's concession in September 2020 that the 8pm curfew they had imposed was not based on health advice or a recommendation from the Chief Health Officer. I observed repeated refusals by the Victorian Government in 2020 and 2021 to reveal the health advice which formed the basis of their policies. These kinds of observations, together with the discrepancies between jurisdictions and the everchanging nature of the public health orders, led me to conclude that the public health orders were not based on credible science or health advice.
15. Throughout most of the pandemic I was convinced that the government's overall response to COVID-19 was unbalanced and disproportionate, causing significantly greater harms than it has prevented. These harms have been economic, social, and health related. I was convinced, and remain convinced, that much of the public health response - including but not limited to border separations, people being denied visits to dying relatives or newborn children, people being forcibly confined in housing towers and the forced prolonged isolation of nursing home residents - was exceptionally cruel.
16. I was angry to read news articles about the repeated, harsh lockdowns causing escalations in depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse, suicidal ideation, mental health problems in children, family breakdown and domestic violence, and sexual abuse in our community. My own professional experience informed me that these kinds of repercussions would be long lasting.
17. I remain convinced that the Victorian lockdowns, the longest in the world, were an unjustified exercise of government power. I am convinced that there was no proper scientific justification for public health orders which destroyed businesses, inflicted poverty and prolonged social isolation on vulnerable people, deprived children of schooling, and created major divisions in society.
18. Despite my vehement objections to the lockdowns, I personally complied with public health orders during the lockdowns and I did not feel negatively towards others who also simply endeavoured to follow the orders. What disturbed me was the kind of unthinking, and even enthusiastic embrace of the police-state that saw some people take it upon themselves to admonish and inform on their fellow citizens. I believe that this was in turn the product of the government's manipulative fear campaign.
19. Throughout the pandemic I have remained networked with hundreds of Australian doctors who share my views regarding the government's aggressive and destructive COVID-19 response. Their existence assured me that the opinions I held were valid, and had a necessary place in community discussion.
In his oral evidence, Dr Kok stated that he wrote Posts 53 to 63 about the Government response to COVID-19 because he and his family had lived through that period. They had experienced this period as a nightmare as they had suffered 260 days of lockdowns. It had impacted Dr Kok's family and people close to them. A person close to their family had their life fall apart. He had been unable to attend the funeral of a close friend. Dr Kok told the Tribunal that he believed that the government had acted in a harsh and authoritarian way. He saw the COVID-19 response as being unnecessary, unjustified and a massive overreach. Dr Kok said he was expressing as a citizen living through this period and wanting to protect people from Government action.
Dr Kok told the Tribunal that he did not intend to demean people by the posts. He said that he was engaged in political protest and many of his posts were satire and humour based. Dr Kok said that he complied with the public health orders. His posts were intended to attack the government and their policies.
In cross-examination, Dr Kok told the Tribunal that he would say he encouraged people to take the COVID-19 vaccine. He agreed that some of his posts were critical of the public health response.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that:
1. He was very concerned about the impact of lockdowns and health orders on personal livelihoods, social impacts and the freedom to worship and sought to be critical of the government;
2. It was never his intention to demean anyone or to insult anyone who considered it right to follow public health orders and that he had followed public health orders;
3. In the posts, Dr Kok was generally making a principled objection to government policies, which he considered to be authoritarian and an unreasonable response to the threat posed by the pandemic. He often used humour to do this and had disbelief that people were not speaking out;
4. He noted that history teaches that consent of the governed is a key ingredient to the seizing and holding of power;
5. Opinions will differ as to whether the public health orders made during the pandemic should be described as authoritarianism or tyranny or slavery under arbitrary power. They are opinions not unreasonably held and it is vital to a healthy democracy that the freedom to express them is preserved.

[339]

In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post is political comment, being a principled objection to authoritarianism and a rejection of abuse on social media of an Australian actress. It was submitted that on a fair reading the post was critical of people who refused to acknowledge or cooperated with an unprecedented exertion of power by the government.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok was implying that people who supported the public health orders were like the functionaries of Nazi Germany.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post expressed views in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic response that denigrated, demeaned and/or slurred persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders including by likening them to followers of totalitarian regimes, including Nazi Germany.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being that the post was inconsistent with Dr Kok's responsibility under the 2020 Code of Conduct 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.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post denigrates, demeans and slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(1) as it is a denigrating, demeaning and slurring of persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders and likened them to followers of Nazi Germany.
The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[352]

In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was political commentary, being a principled objection to authoritarianism and shared a news article about vaccine passports.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post implies equivalence between Germans of the 1930 allowing the Nazi to come to power and pursue their policies, with our society allowing governments to introduce the COVID-19 health orders.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was denigrating, demeaning or slurring of persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders. The post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4.2, being that the post was inconsistent with Dr Kok's responsibility under the 2020 Code of Conduct 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. The post was a discouragement for people to follow the public health orders.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was denigrating, demeaning and slurring of 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 to rise to power. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(1) as it is a denigrating, demeaning and slurring of persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders and likened them to people in Nazi Germany.
The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[375]

In cross-examination, Dr Kok stated that the reference to 1930's Germany was to the Nazis. He had strong views on whether the lockdowns were sensible and whether they were doing more harm than good. Dr Kok accepted that it was serious to compare people who complied with COVID-19 health orders with Nazi collaborators.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was political commentary, being a principled objection to authoritarianism and seeking to draw attention to the dangers inherent in free peoples turning a blind eye to the erosion of their freedom.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post implies equivalence between Germans of the 1930 allowing the Nazi to come to power and pursue their policies with our society allowing governments to introduce the COVID-19 health orders.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post denigrates, demeans or slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders. The post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4.2, being that the post was inconsistent with Dr Kok's responsibility under the 2020 Code of Conduct 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. The post was a discouragement to people to follow the public health orders.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the 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 to rise to power. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(1) as it denigrates, demeans and slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders and likens them to followers of Nazi Germany.
The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[420]

In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was political comment about the efficacy of lockdowns and the reported increase in other illnesses in several countries following lockdowns. It was submitted that the word 'Cowering' was exaggerated language to get the point across which was not untypical on social media.
The article posted was a factual article regarding some adverse health effects from the public health orders, in this case lockdowns, which caused a lack of immunity to certain illnesses in a part of the population. The article does not contain a statement or clear implication as to persons that accepted and/or considered it right to follow public health orders.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the comment by Dr Kok accuses adults of cowering inside their homes. This is a reference to persons who followed the public health orders. The term cowering indicates that the persons are acting in a cowardly manner by following the public health orders.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post denigrates, demeans or slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders. The post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4.2, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to follow the public health orders.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that due to the description of persons who followed public health orders to stay at home as cowering, the post denigrates, demeans and slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(2), as it denigrates, demeans and slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[428]

Dr Kok in cross-examination denied that he was slurring or making fun of people who wore face masks during the pandemic and denied that the post was inflammatory.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was political comment about the use of fear by governments to promote public acceptance of lockdowns and for humour.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post implies that persons who accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders by wearing a facemask, were suffering from paranoid hysteria or some close to it. Such a description denigrates, demeans and slurs those persons.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was denigrating, demeaning or slurring of persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders. The post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4.2, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to follow the public health orders.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the 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. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(2), as it denigrates, demeans and slurs persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders.
The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[429]

Allegation 1(iv)(B) of the ANOA provides that between 20 May 2010 and 15 October 2021, Dr Kok's posts drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines. Particular (v)(D)(II) of the ANOA provides that the posts expressed views in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic response which drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines, including by:
1. demeaning people who have been vaccinated;
2. suggesting that God alone has the power to end the pandemic, or that the blood of Christ will protect from COVID-19;
3. suggesting that safety of the COVID-19 vaccines is not proven and the testing and production testing was inadequate;
4. suggesting that vaccines were made of 'body parts' of aborted babies.
Dr Kok's witness statement included the following about vaccine issues:
1. I support medicines and vaccines which have been proven safe and beneficial, to my satisfaction.
2. I have no objection to vaccines that are currently on the early childhood vaccination schedule. While practising medicine I played my part to encourage families to be up to date in their immunisations.
3. I take no issue with people having vaccines voluntarily - particularly the elderly or medically vulnerable - but I believe that people who have hesitations should be taken seriously. There should not be coercion or compulsion and people should not be denied work and social benefits on the basis of their vaccination status.
4. In 2015 I wrote a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, opposing the introduction of the No Jab, No Pay scheme. I argued in this submission that such a coercive measure would undermine trust in the medical profession. I have always strongly objected to coercive medicine. From pages 66 to 67 of the Exhibit to this Statement is a true copy of my submission dated 2 October 2015.
5. I believe that vaccines, like all medicines, should be promoted and used for their medical benefits alone, not for social, political and economic reasons. I consider that promoting and using medicines for purposes other than health is unethical. It greatly disturbed me to see COVID-19 vaccinations being promoted and used for non-health reasons and to my mind this was a movement into uncharted ethical territory.
6. Specifically, I was disturbed when in 2021 I heard many people, including personal friends, saying that they were getting a COVID-19 vaccine not for health reasons but for reasons such as "I want to be able to travel", "I want to go to the gym", "I need to be able to attend my children's' activities", and "I can't afford to lose my employment". Several friends confessed to me that aside from these kinds of reasons, they would have preferred to avoid the vaccines. Furthermore, I strongly disapproved when messaging from politicians and the media during the vaccine rollout used these kinds of social incentives to persuade people to be vaccinated. I regarded this as an unethical form of coercion.
7. When I trained in medicine, we were taught that medicine involves forming a therapeutic partnership with the patient. Treatment decisions are made collaboratively; a doctor's duty is to provide the patient with advice and then allow them to make their own free decision. It is unethical to coerce a patient to accept treatment; free and informed consent must be obtained for any treatment except in the case of a patient suffering a medical emergency.
8. I believe that coerced medical treatment - such as vaccine mandates - and the granting of rewards or penalties based on vaccination status, are antithetical to the principle of informed consent, ethical practice, and doctor-patient relationships built on trust and mutual respect. I believe these things take health care down a dangerous, unethical road.
9. I was alarmed when Scott Morrison said on Melbourne radio in August 2020 that the COVID-19 vaccines would be made "as mandatory as possible". From that time on I dreaded that the issue would become extremely divisive and result in unethical, segregationist policies and widespread demonisation of people who were hesitant.
10. I was dismayed that during the pandemic, the role of doctors as advocates for their patients was undermined. I believe that a doctor must advocate for their patients, ahead of the interests of any other group. This includes patients who are unwilling to receive a vaccine, and especially those who experience distress in this context.
11. I have several personal friends who were very distressed about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, under the threat of losing their jobs. I was dismayed to hear their accounts of being treated unsympathetically, and in some cases callously, by health professionals during 2021.
12. I have observed that coercive COVID-19 vaccination policies have driven vaccine scepticism. This increased vaccine scepticism goes beyond the COVID-19 vaccines to vaccines that have been available for many years and were previously trusted by the community. In 2021, during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, I witnessed numerous people, including a few nurses and doctors, announcing that they had lost faith in all vaccines.
13. More broadly, I observed the coercive vaccination policies undermining people's trust in the medical profession overall. Numerous friends told me that their perception of doctors was that they were paternalistic and bullying towards the public, and this ruined their trust in doctors going forward. This convinced me even further that mandatory vaccination had to be opposed.
14. In early to mid-2020, I read a number of articles which argued that it would be very difficult to create a successful COVID-19 vaccine in a short time-frame. An article published by the ABC on 17 April 2020, titled "We've never made a successful vaccine for a coronavirus before. This is why it's so difficult" described numerous technical difficulties and potential hazards, based on information provided by an Australian professor involved in vaccine development. An article published by The Guardian on 22 May 2020, titled "Why we might not get a coronavirus vaccine" described many challenges and noted that "The fastest [successful] vaccine ever developed was for mumps. It took four years." This echoed what was written in articles I read in the National Geographic ("Why a coronavirus vaccine could take way longer than a year", 10 April 2020) and Business Insider ("How long it took to develop 12 other vaccines in history", 18 July 2020); and it lined up with my own knowledge that medicines typically take years to develop and bring to market.
15. I also read media and academic papers documenting how COVID vaccine development departed from existing protocols for the sake of haste, for example by permitting human trials to begin prior to the completion of animal trials. (These included "Researchers rush to test coronavirus vaccine in people without knowing how well it works in animals", Stat news, 11 March 2020; and "Developing Covid-19 Vaccines at Pandemic Speed", NEJM, 21 May 2020.) Hence when successful vaccines were announced later in 2020, I had a considerable degree of scepticism and concern about the quality of the products and the rigor with which they had been tested. I was concerned that DNA and RNA and viralvector based vaccines had never before been used in humans. I was also aware of the vaccines' status as "provisionally approved" - a status which did not change throughout 2020 and 2021 - meaning that trial data was incomplete, and still being collected.
16. My own medical career gave me familiarity with the science of vaccines, and I was conscious of the fact that even after decades of research effort, we have never developed a vaccine against common cold and respiratory viruses, including coronaviruses, which provides long-term sterilising immunity.
17. My personal views about the COVID-19 vaccines, which are reflected in some of my Facebook posts, were informed further from mid-2021 by a series of essays written by clinical immunologist and emeritus professor at Newcastle University Medical School, Dr Robert Clancy. Dr Clancy viewed the COVID-19 vaccines as having a role to play in the response to the pandemic, while also noting their "experimental nature". He observed that the first three vaccines approved provisionally for use in Australia use "novel technology" with a "shaky past", and were "unprecedented in terms of speed of development and regulatory assessment". Clancy voiced concern about a high number of adverse events, including deaths, that have been reported worldwide, which he described as "unacceptable in the long term".
18. I have always had a cautious attitude towards new medicines, which I believe is appropriate for doctors. As a GP, I regularly interrogated pharmaceutical representatives about new products and scrutinised their data to satisfy myself before feeling confident to prescribe.
19. My career in medicine gave me a strong awareness of the history of approved medical products for which significant safety issues became known after widespread use, sometimes many years later. These include menopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT), DES, Vioxx, thiazolidinediones, Protos, Di-Gesic, and vaginal meshes. The HRT controversy erupted during my final years of medical school; Vioxx was withdrawn from the market at the beginning of my career as a doctor; warnings were issued about thiazolidinediones while I was a GP registrar; Protos and Di-Gesic were withdrawn from use during my general practice career. I have distinct memories of Protos being marketed as a new wonder-drug while I worked in a geriatric-orthopaedic job at Northern Health in 2005.
20. I also had an awareness of vaccine products which had run into trouble post-marketing. I knew about RotaShield, which was withdrawn due to an unacceptably high rate of adverse effects. I was in clinical practice when the problems occurred with the CSL influenza vaccine in 2010. My older colleagues told me about the transition from whole-cell pertussis vaccine to the acellular vaccine, necessitated by adverse reactions.
21. Cumulatively, the factors described in the above paragraphs made me feel very uneasy about the rapid rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines and the intense pressure being put on the community - especially its low-risk members - to receive this new product. Once it became known that COVID-19 vaccines were causing major adverse events such as central-venous sinus thrombosis and cardiac inflammation in some recipients (resulting in several European countries suspending the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in March 2021, for example), I became strongly persuaded that the coercion of the public to receive a provisionally approved, rapidly developed novel-technology medicine was an ethical disaster.
22. I objected very strongly to the implementation of vaccine passports in society; in my view they created a system of segregation that is morally indistinguishable from apartheid. I saw no justification for a two-tiered society based on vaccination status because it was known since August 2021 at the latest - from published research and public statements made by the director of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, Dr Rochelle Walensky - that the COVID-19 vaccines did not prevent community transmission.
23. In particular it was, and still is, my adamant belief that segregation on the basis of social and medical status has no place in the Christian church. I consider segregation to be deeply at odds with the Christian gospel and the explicit teachings of the Bible concerning Christian unity and corporate worship. I was aghast, and deeply grieved, when some churches contemplated complying with government orders to implement vaccine-based segregation in the second half of 2021. I was both delighted and relieved when three Australian pastors authored the Ezekiel Declaration, which boldly opposed segregation in the church and defended liberty of conscience. This declaration was signed by over three thousand Australian church leaders and over twenty-six thousand Australian Christians, including myself, and I was keen to commend it to my Christian friends.
In his oral evidence, Dr Kok stated that he wrote posts 74 to 85 about the Government response to COVID-19 for two reasons. Firstly, he questioned the ethics and morality of using abortion derived products in vaccines for COVID-19. Secondly, he was concerned about the use of coercive and punitive measures to encourage people to be vaccinated. Dr Kok stated that he is not anti-vaccination, he is not saying do not get vaccinated. He objected to punitive and coercive policies to push people against their will to be vaccinated. Dr Kok stated that he supports people being able to choose their treatment.
Dr Kok told the Tribunal that he opposed vaccine mandates, which caused a number of his friends to lose their jobs. He saw people losing faith in their doctors and in vaccines. Dr Kok told the Tribunal that he observed people saying that they did not trust doctors or vaccines anymore.
Dr Kok stated that many years ago he had made a submission to Government against a no jab, no pay policy for social security benefits. He believes that people should have a free choice. Forcing people to be vaccinated can cause people to lose trust in the health system and pushes them further away.
He told the Tribunal that he believed that mandates decreased public confidence in more established vaccines.
In cross-examination, Dr Kok was asked whether he agreed that in his posts about vaccines, he had been generally negative. In response, he stated that he had expressed his sceptical view of the time regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. When it was put to Dr Kok that he had put his views in a one sided way, using arguments against without referring to the benefits, Dr Kok stated that he never said that vaccines would not have benefits. He said that they were novel and therefore he was sceptical. When it was put to Dr Kok, that the tenor of his comments was that the vaccines were unproven and testing was inadequate, he replied that he said that the long term safety had not sufficiently been established.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that he is in favour of vaccination but has strong convictions that people should not be coerced by way of economic and social pressure to be vaccinated. It was also submitted that the development of a novel vaccine is legitimately the subject of debate and discussion in the community and Dr Kok engaged in the debate as a member of the community.

[430]

In Post 1, Dr Kok states "Piper speaks to the issue of using a medicine / vaccine derived from the desecration of a murdered human being. Praise God for his wisdom and clarity of thought!" The Post attaches an article entitled "Can I Take a Vaccine Made from Aborted Babies?"
The post was made in the circumstance of an assumption that had arisen that a cell line, HEK293, was derived from a medically aborted foetus in the 1970s. The scientific evidence that this is any more than an assumption is unclear.
One of early COVID-19 vaccines used the HEK293 cell line in its production.
The Board's position is that to refer to a legally performed medical abortion as a murdered human being is to equate abortion with murder and denigrate, demean and slur medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to their patients.
Dr Kok gave evidence that he views abortion as the intentional killing of a human being inside the womb and it is a grave moral wrong. He stated that he accepted that in relation to a number of posts relating to the performance of abortions by medical practitioners, that although his intention had not been to demean other medical practitioners, he was discourteous and what he said could be seen as denigrating and demeaning. In relation to Post 1, Dr Kok stated in his evidence that it was not appropriate for a doctor to speak publicly using the word 'murder' in relation to abortion.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok conceded that the use of the word 'murdered' was inappropriate.
The Tribunal notes that the reference to a drug being made from body parts is medically inaccurate, as Professor Blyth states in the extract at [114] above.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines by stating that the vaccine was derived from a murdered human being. The post was inaccurate as the vaccine was not derived from a human being and the person from which the relevant cell line was originally derived was not murdered. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post sought to discourage the use of the vaccine.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information. The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(2). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[441]

The Board submitted that Professor Blyth's evidence was that to describe vaccines as being manufactured using body parts derived from aborted babies was not an accurate description and cell lines are very different to that description. He stated that the statement in the article gives no background, which is complex and requires explanation. He further stated that it is going to shock people and it is not a useful therapeutic conversation.
The Board submitted that the post was an implicit criticism of members of the public who complied with public health orders. The Board did concede that the argument for this post was less strong than other posts.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post is expressing his views and beliefs about abortion and vaccine mandates, not vaccines. He is sharing an article that discusses the role of Christian leaders in opposing vaccine mandates due to the impact on Christian fellowship and worship. It was submitted that reference to 'clinical trial' was in the context of some people viewing the vaccines in that way and were the words used by the Minister for Health on 21 February 2021, when he said, 'The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever'. It was submitted that Professor Blyth distinguishes between pre-registration clinical trials and post-registration evaluation. The written submission also refers to the submissions regarding Post 1.
Dr Kok's comment appears to be making a religious argument about vaccine mandates. The Board has not discharged its onus to comfortably satisfy the Tribunal that this comment drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines.
The article where it refers to the use of aborted foetal tissue in vaccine development is scientifically incorrect. As discussed earlier in these reasons, to describe vaccines as being manufactured using body parts derived from aborted babies was not an accurate description. While the statement is incorrect, in the context of an article in relation to religious perspectives and includes arguments in favour of the vaccine, the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the statement drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines mandates.
In relation to the aspects of the article which state that COVID-19 vaccines benefitted from the evil of abortion, although there is doubt as to the factual and scientific accuracy of this statement, as discussed above, it is a religious argument in a religious context. It was not a statement made in a medical or scientific context. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the comments regarding the COVID-19 vaccines benefitted from the evil of abortion drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines.
The third aspect of the post raised by the Board is the reference in the article to the use of the COVID-19 vaccine as a clinical trial. The COVID-19 vaccines used in Australia were granted provisional registration following clinical trials. Further post-market assessments are undertaken of vaccines after they are registered to identify any rare side effects which may be too rare to be identified in clinical trials. Professor Blyth gave evidence that the vaccine was not a clinical trial. The Tribunal is satisfied that the COVID-19 vaccines available in Australia were not provided as a clinical trial. The statement in the article is therefore incorrect.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post in so far as it referred to the COVID-19 vaccine as a clinical trial drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines. The Tribunal notes that the article did contain some balancing statements in favour of the vaccine.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that as far as it refers to the Covid-19 vaccine as a clinical trial, the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to take the vaccine.
The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the post, as far as it refers to the Covid-19 vaccine as a clinical trial, supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(2), as it drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[447]

In cross-examination, when it was put to Dr Kok that the post was suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines were not safe and effective and that COVID-19 is not a disease for which a safe and effective vaccine is possible**,** he replied that his post was not specifically about COVID-19 vaccines. He was wary of vaccines invented less than one year ago.
Professor Blyth gave evidence that Dr Kok's statement that the 'diseases for which a safe and effective vaccine is possible are essentially the ones that we already have found vaccines for', 'oversimplifies a complex issue with elements of selective reporting'.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was political comment about the use of fear by governments to promote public acceptance of lockdowns and for humour.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was engaging in a discussion about medicine by posting a Venn diagram that indicates that he considered vaccines to be generally good and then engaged in reasoned discussion in the comments. It was submitted that Professor Blyth's opinion should not mean that the post supports a finding of unprofessional conduct. It was further submitted that Professor Petrovsky stated that he did not consider the post to be misleading, placed the post in the context of media coverage and were 'legitimate views that could be shared by other medical practitioners and vaccine experts'. It was also submitted that Professor Petrovsky stated that there is 'a large amount of literature in the vaccine word (sic) talking about the difficulty of developing vaccines going forward, and the fact of the easy ones had largely already been done'.[158]
In relation to the development of vaccines and particularly the COVID-19 vaccines, Dr Kok's post states all the easy, safe, effective ones were invented pre-2000 and [t]he diseases for which a safe effective vaccine is possible are essentially the ones that we have found vaccines for. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the implication from these statements is that the COVID-19 vaccines are not safe and effective.
The evidence from Professor Blyth was as follows:
1. I believe that Dr Kok's post oversimplifies a complex issue, with elements of selective reporting.
2. Scientific research to develop effective and safe vaccines has been occurring for centuries. In the period of time post World War II, many of the world's most impactful vaccines were developed and introduced into national schedules (e.g. tetanus, polio, diphtheria, measles) including the Australian schedule.
3. Below is a list of vaccines recommended in Australia and the year of first introduction highlighting those new products, recommended and funded because of their demonstrated impact, continue to be discovered and introduced:

[454]

It should be noted that for some vaccines, more effective, safer or combination vaccines have been introduced (e.g. several pneumococcal vaccines, several meningococcal vaccines, combined vaccines including Diphtheria‐Tetanus‐Pertussis, Measles‐Mumps‐Rubella) since first released for use.
Attempts to develop vaccines against more recently discovered disease targets has resulted in development of some highly effective vaccines. An example, cited by Dr Kok as being costly, of lower benefit or with higher adverse events reactions is Human Papillomavirus [HPV] vaccine. Introduced into Australia in 2006‐7 for females and subsequently for males, the HPV vaccine has resulted in a >90% reduction in HPV-associated lesions when given prior to exposure and is now dramatically reducing the incidence of cervical cancer both in Australian and internationally. A further example is Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccines, where Dr Kok states there has been no success. Recently developed RSV vaccines have been successfully trialled in both pregnant women and older individuals, demonstrating efficacy estimates of >80%. Registration of RSV vaccines is expected in the near future.
It however needs to be acknowledged that approximately 1 in 10 drug (or vaccine) development projects make it from phase I clinical trials to drug approval, highlighting that significant effort is required to develop new products.12 Many of these new produces require more expensive and modern technology having been unsuccessfully developed using existing technology.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post in so far as 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 notes that the article did contain some balancing statements in favour of the vaccine. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to take the vaccine.
The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(2) as it drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines, as the post implied that the COVID-19 vaccines are not safe and effective. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[463]

In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was expressing his views and beliefs about a matter of medicine by sharing factual material from the BBC, and making comments about a decision to recommend a vaccine for children in the UK for reasons other than medical reasons.
It was submitted that Professor Blyth's views were that governments were making challenging decisions and Dr Kok's comments were oversimplified. It was submitted that Professor Blyth's views should not mean that the post supports a finding of unprofessional conduct. Further, it was submitted that Professor Petrovsky had stated that he did not consider the post to be misleading and the post was in the context of media coverage.
This post implies that Covid-19 vaccinations for children are being given in the UK against scientific advice, not for reasons of health and not to stop the spread of Covid in schools or society. The comment also implies there are no improvements to the health risks from giving the vaccination to this cohort. However, the statements quoted in the image provide different information. The specific scientific advice referred to was not recommending on health grounds alone. The scientific advice was not against the vaccination of this cohort. The decision to vaccinate was made by a group of chief health officers. The statements quoted note that the vaccination of the cohort would help to keep cases down and help to prevent further disruption of students' education. The factors in favour of vaccination of that cohort were a mix of direct and indirect health benefits and societal benefits.
Dr Kok himself had noted in his evidence, in another context, that disruption to children's schooling and the variety of effects that this disruption had on them, including potential health effects.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post, in so far as it implies that Covid-19 vaccinations for children were being given in the UK against scientific advice, not for reasons of health and not to stop the spread of Covid in schools or society, drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to the take the vaccine.
The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(2) as it drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[480]

In relation to this post Dr Kok stated, in part, in his witness statement as follows:[168]
1. I have observed that coercive COVID-19 vaccination policies have driven vaccine scepticism. This increased vaccine scepticism goes beyond the COVID-19 vaccines to vaccines that have been available for many years and were previously trusted by the community. In 2021, during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, I witnessed numerous people, including a few nurses and doctors, announcing that they had lost faith in all vaccines.
2. More broadly, I observed the coercive vaccination policies undermining people's trust in the medical profession overall. Numerous friends told me that their perception of doctors was that they were paternalistic and bullying towards the public, and this ruined their trust in doctors going forward. This convinced me even further that mandatory vaccination had to be opposed.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was expressing his views and beliefs about abortion and vaccine mandates and a political statement by drawing a parallel with a slogan in respect of bodily autonomy.
The article attached to this post implies a limited possibility of the hospital system being overwhelmed. This minimised the very real risk of this occurring. The post also substantially understates the risks of the virus and benefits of the vaccine.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post, in as far as it minimised the very real risk of the hospital system being overwhelmed and substantially understates the risks of the virus and benefits of the vaccine, drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to take the vaccine.
The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(2) as it drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[487]

In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was another post about 'The Ezekiel Declaration'.
Dr Kok's comment relates to the possibility of the need for a Covid-19 vaccination passport for attendance at religious services. The comment is largely political and religious and does not contain any express or implied comment which drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines.
However, the aspect of the article extracted above at [715], does downplay the benefits of vaccination. Some limited balance is provided in the document by a statement accepting that the writers respect the right of some people to decide to have the vaccine.
The post contains some criticisms of church and religious leaders. The post is largely political and religious arguments.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post in as far as the article downplays the benefits of vaccination was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to take the vaccine.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post, as far as the article downplays the benefits of vaccination, drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) as it drew on and legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines. The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[499]

In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was expressing his views and beliefs about abortion and vaccine mandates and was political commentary. It was submitted that the post was pro vaccine as Dr Kok was expressing concern that vaccine mandates would be likely to encourage scepticism or hesitation in people about vaccination. It was further submitted that this was supported by Professor Petrosky's evidence, where he noted that 'This phenomenon of public pushback to overly aggressive vaccine campaigns is well-recognised in the field and is a key reason why vaccine mandates have previously not been supported by the field, including by the WHO.'[177]
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that this post repeats, draws on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines, as it repeats and legitimises statements which question the use of vaccines.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far as it repeats and legitimises statements which question the use of vaccines was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to take the vaccine.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines, as it repeats and legitimises statements which question the use of vaccines. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[509]

In cross-examination, when it was put to Dr Kok that comparing a vaccine to playing Russian Roulette is pretty alarmist language, he replied that he was alarmed that the vaccine could cause central venous thrombosis which is a blood clot inside the head. This was a very serious side effect and he was asking people which they would be comfortable with. Dr Kok conceded that his post may cause vaccine hesitancy, but he was making a point and quoting the odds. He did not consider that this vaccine was one that he would be willing to take. Dr Kok said he made the point using references to guns and Russian Roulette, as he wanted to drive home the point.
The post refers to concern about deadly blood clots from the vaccine and then leads into the image which Dr Kok refers to as a humorous meme, listing human interactions after the vaccination as side effects.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was social commentary by way of humour and a reasoned discussion where he expressed views about a matter of medicine. It was submitted that the post was accurate in describing COVID-19 vaccines as experimental as they were administered to general populations during the period of development in which ordinarily trial data would still be collected. It was further submitted that the use of term Russian Roulette in relation to the vaccine was ameliorated by Dr Kok expressly stating the odds which he took from an ABC news article.
The Board has failed to discharge its onus to prove that the initial post of Dr Kok or his posting of the image headed Just Been Jabbed, drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines. As Dr Kok indicated, it is attempted humour as to the sense of superiority some may allegedly feel or exhibit after being vaccinated.
The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the initial comment, including the comment by Dr Kok and the image, drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the initial post including the comment by Dr Kok and the image, supports Allegation 1(iv)(A) and particular (v)(D)(I)(2).
The Tribunal then considered the later posts. The post comparing having the vaccine to playing Russian Roulette and putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger used inflammatory and emotive language. Although the correct probability was used in this post, the language used severely exaggerated and emphasised the risks.
The Board submitted that Dr Kok's language did not contribute to the public debate about vaccination efficacy in a constructive or appropriate way. The words were inflammatory and had the potential to contribute to vaccine hesitancy.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far as it used inflammatory and emotive language which severely exaggerated and emphasised the risks, including the language of playing Russian Roulette and putting a gun to your head, was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to take the vaccine.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines, uses inflammatory and emotive language which severely exaggerated and emphasised the risks. The Tribunal is therefore comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A). The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[523]

The Board submitted that to describe the vaccine in such an incorrect manner, would be likely to contribute to vaccine hesitancy.
In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was political commentary in relation to a statement from the then Prime Minister that the vaccines would be as mandatory as you can possibly make it. It was submitted that Dr Kok's comment was an observation that the vaccines had been developed quickly, which is a factual observation. It was also submitted that Dr Blyth had said that the COVID-19 vaccines were developed rapidly and identified previous technology that helped to enable this rapid development and noted there was incredible financial support.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far as it negatively portrays the speed of the development and testing and approval of the vaccine, and implies the vaccine was not safe and was not being provided for scientific or medical purposes but for political purposes, was inconsistent with the 2020 Code of Conduct, including section 7.4, being 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. The post was a discouragement for people to take the vaccine.
The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information as far as it negatively portrays the speed of the development and testing and approval of the vaccine, and implies the vaccine was not safe and was not provided for scientific or medical purposes but for political purposes. The Tribunal therefore is comfortably satisfied that the post supports Allegation 1(iv)(A).
The Tribunal has considered the possible impact of the decision on Dr Kok's human rights and has balanced the competing private and public rights and whether the impact on his rights is appropriate. The Tribunal is satisfied that any limitation on Dr Kok's Charter rights is lawful, reasonably and justified in accordance with s7(2) of the Charter and that none of Dr Kok's Charter rights described above affect this finding.

[524]

As the Tribunal has found Allegation 1 proven but the Board has not found proven each aspect of the conduct relied upon in the particulars and the allegation, the Tribunal must take care to only characterise the proven conduct in this proceeding. The Board's submissions above were made on the basis that it would prove all or most of the posts support the Allegation. It has failed to do so. The Tribunal was not comfortably satisfied that any of the posts supported particular (v)(D)(I)(2), being that the posts suggested that God alone has the power to end the pandemic, or that the blood of Christ will protect from COVID-19
Of the 85 posts alleged in the ANOA, the Tribunal above has found 31 posts do not support the relevant particular or an aspect of the Allegation in the ANOA and/or are ambiguous or uncertain as to their meanings or did not make out the allegation as alleged. The Tribunal has found that 54 of the posts support one or more of the allegations and particulars.
The Tribunal has found that Dr Kok has engaged in conduct which involved posts which contained statements that:
1. Denigrated, demeaned and slurred medical practitioners who:
  1. Provided abortion treatment to patients;
  2. Recognised and treated gender dysphoria;
  3. Recognised that people who are transgender, are not suffering from a mental health condition;
2. Expressed sentiments of violence and/or made derogatory statements towards racial and religious groups and members of the profession who provide abortion services;
3. Expressed views that denigrated, demeaned and disrespected and were derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons and community;
4. In relation to the COVID-19 pandemic response denigrated, demeaned and slurred people who accepted and/or considered it right to follow public health orders;
5. Drew on and legitimised anti-vaccination and vaccination hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines.
The Board submitted that the respondent's behaviour, as alleged in the ANOA, should be found to constitute professional misconduct. The Board submitted that without attempting to be comprehensive, it relevantly relies on the following:
1. Some of the worst posts were directed at other medical practitioners;
2. Some posts were demeaning and would be very upsetting to vulnerable groups, including those who may seek medical attention;
3. Some posts used pseudo-medical language, such as 'disorder', 'mutilated' and 'sociopathy' to describe vulnerable and marginalised groups;
4. Some posts were in such extreme and derogatory terms that they may have encouraged individuals from seeking medical care from Dr Kok or otherwise from the medical profession;
5. Some posts may have caused vaccine hesitancy and undermine compliance with public health directions; and
6. The posts had the potential to undermine public confidence in the medical profession.
In relation to the characterisation of the proven conduct, Dr Kok submitted in part:[186]

Parties

Applicant/Plaintiff:

Medical Board of Australia

Respondent/Defendant:

Kok

Legislation Cited (4)

Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009

Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998

Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009

Cases Cited (12)

Medical Board of Australia v Kok (Review & Regulation) [2025] VCAT 650 (22 July 2025)

Review and Regulation List - medical practitioner - factual findings - social media posts - whether posts denigrated, demeaned or slurred medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment, recognise and treat gender dysphoria and recognise that people who identify as transgender are not suffering from a mental health condition, whether posts express sentiments of violence and/or made derogatory statements towards racial and religious groups and/or towards members of the profession who provide abortion services, whether posts expressed views that denigrated, demeaned and/or were disrespectful of and/or derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons and/or community, whether comments denigrated, demeaned or slurred persons that accepted and/or considered it right to follow COVID-19 public health orders, whether in relation to COVID-19 the posts drew on and/or legitimised antivaccination or vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and/or contained misleading information regarding vaccines, characterisation of conduct - sections 5 and 196 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009, Sections 4, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 38 and 40 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) CLR 336, Sabet v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria [2008] VSC 346; (2008) 20 VR 414, Fidge v Medical Board of Australia [2024] VSC 471, Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39; (2004) 220 CLR 1, Attorney General (SA) v Corporation of City of Adelaide (2013) 249 CLR 1.

(2008) 20 VR 414

(1981) 147 CLR 297

(2003) 214 CLR 269

(1994) 179 CLR 427

(2018) 56 VR 51

(2004) 220 CLR 1

(2013) 249 CLR 1

(1998) 194 CLR 355

(2007) 169 FCR 151

(2019) 267 CLR 373

Medical Board of Australia v Kok

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (585 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (12)

Medical Board of Australia v Kok (Review & Regulation) [2025] VCAT 650 (22 July 2025)