The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (VCAT) lengthy finding in the case of Jereth Kok, upholding the decision of the Medical Board to suspend his registration to practice medicine, has now been posted online. The finding reveals which of the social media and online material VCAT found to be misconduct and which were not. VCAT found that 31 of the 85 examples which the Medical Board based its decision on were not breaches of the board’s code of conduct. In this article we will depict examples of both categories.
Abortion
Example one of the Medical Board’s 85 examples was a comment made on Facebook post by Kok commenting on an article by US minister John Piper.
VCAT found that it was “comfortably satisfied that the post, as far as it refers to abortion being murder, … it equates abortion with murder and thereby denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients…. 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.” VCAT noted “In his written submissions, Dr Kok conceded that the use of the word ‘murdered’ was inappropriate.”
Example three
VCAT notes “Dr Kok stated in his oral evidence that he should not have referred to a slaughtered human being, but instead referred to a human being who had their life ended by abortion.
“In Dr Kok’s written submissions, it was conceded that the use of the word slaughtered was inappropriate.
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was inconsistent with the 2014 Code of Conduct.”
Example 4 was a re-post of a Babylon Bee meme.
VCAT notes: “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.”
Post 11 A comment on the Culturewatch website run by Bill Muehlenberg.
VCAT: “In Dr Kok’s written submissions, it was submitted that Dr Kok was expressing his views and beliefs about abortion in a discussion on a Christian website and he now accepts that he should not have used the word ‘butcher’…
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far as it refers to doctors who provide abortion services being butchers, denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients…”
Transgender
VCAT found that example 12, a link to a piece by theologian Dr A J Gagnon “appears to be a generally factual case study of a 10 year old child who was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and later stated she was not transgender. Some aspects of the article, particularly the use of an individual case to reflect negatively on all practitioners in the area of practice and the use of the term manufacturing of trans kids, may paint medical practitioners in a negative light.”
But VCAT was “not comfortably satisfied that the post denigrates, demeans or slurs medical practitioners who recognise and treat gender dysphoria.”
Example 13:
VCAT found that this post denigrated doctors: “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…”
Post 38 was Jereth Kok’s Eternity Article.
As this writer was the editor who commissioned this article, we’ll quote VCAT at length.
“In relation to this post, Dr Kok stated in his supplementary witness statement as follows: ‘Eternity News is a Christian magazine and news service which is available online and in hard copy. It is distributed from churches in Australia. I wrote this article, at the invitation of former editor John Sandeman, in response to another they had previously published on transgenderism. I wrote from a Christian moral and social perspective, and expressed uncontroversial biological facts regarding the immutability of sex and chromosomes. In the context of this discussion the article did not affect the cultural safety of my medical practice.’
“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.
“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.”
Homosexuality
Example 41 was a Jereth Kok comment on a Muellenberg thread.
In his evidence, Jereth Kok stated: “My comments here were part of a discussion amongst Christians where we explored the topic of sin and sexuality from a theological perspective. The views I expressed are consistent with mainstream Christian belief. I used the term “therapy”, referring to counselling based approaches, at a time before there were any moves to legislate against conversion therapy and years before professional bodies in Australia published an official stance on the matter. I went out of my way to state my view that seeking “therapy” is a matter of personal choice rather than a matter of obligation. These comments were in the context of a discussion of religious beliefs and not related to my medical practice or any of my medical colleagues, and did not contribute to a culturally unsafe practice.”
VCAT: “Dr Kok’s post was part of a longer online conversation between a number of people regarding homosexuality. Dr Kok acknowledges in his post that homosexuality is not classified as a mental disorder. However, he does refer to homosexuality as being a sort of brokenness and that he believes that it should be classified as a mental disorder.
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that Dr Kok has sought to imply a medical disorder to a person’s sexual orientation, which is inconsistent with current medical practice.
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that these comments within the post are denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons, as they indicate a doctor’s view that they are broken and should be classified as mentally ill for who they are. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post s… 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.” (VCAT makes similar statements about balancing rights each time when making findings with respect to free speach.)
Babylon Bee repost misconduct
Post 44 was a repost of a Babylon Bee meme.
VCAT: “The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ community as it trivialised reference to the identity issues of some in the LGBTQI+ community. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post .. is a denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory statement to the LGBTQI+ community.”
Lyle Shelton and Mark Latham
VCAT: “Dr Kok’s only comment is ‘Lyle’s report’. The article describes current accepted treatment for gender dysphoria as bodily mutilation.
“In relation to this post, Dr Kok stated in his supplementary witness statement as follows:’I shared Lyle Shelton’s blog post about Mark Latham MP’s “Parental Rights Bill”. Mr Shelton is a well-known Christian political lobbyist and commentator. Latham’s bill was designed to prevent activist teachers from inculcating children with gender fluid ideology in a school setting, which is what “they are coming for your children” refers to.’
“It is not clear who is alleged to be coming for your children. The Tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that the Board has made out this ground of the allegation.
“The Board submitted that it was denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ community, to imply that LGBTQI+ people were coming for your children and that treatment for gender dysphoria was bodily mutilation.
“In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post is political commentary in sharing a blog post from a public figure regarding an issue being promoted by a politician.
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post was denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory to LGBTQI+ community as far as it referred to treatment as bodily mutilation. Otherwise, the material in the article is largely political arguments.
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far as it referred to treatment as bodily mutilation was inconsistent with the 2020 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 … in so far as it referred to treatment as bodily mutilation,… a denigrating, demeaning, disrespectful and derogatory statement to the LGBTQI+ community.”
Covid
Example 57 involved a Jereth Kok comment on an Eternity post
VCAT: “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, … 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.”
Example 1 was also examined once more, with regard to vaccines. VCAT:”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.”
Example 78: Supporting the Ezekiel Declaration is misconduct.
VCAT: “It appears from the article that the Ezekiel Declaration was an open letter to the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, regarding digital COVID-19 vaccination passports being introduced. The Article includes the following statement:
“Well, that’s true enough statement. Trials for Pfizer end in 2023. As the ED goes on to say, it is a reason some people decline the vaccine. (They want to wait for more long-term data.)
“Source 2: MP Greg Hunt, ‘“’The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data.’
“In his written submissions, Dr Kok stated that the post was expressing his views and beliefs about a matter of faith and a political comment about vaccine mandates, in sharing a document ‘The Ezekiel Declaration’, which is said to oppose the introduction of vaccine passports, including for Church worship.
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the article attached to the post implies that the Covid-19 vaccine is a clinical trial. The article attached to the post also implies that the Covid-19 vaccine is ineffective against the vaccine by only referring to its inability to stop people becoming infected and passing on the virus.
“The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post drew on and legitimised antivaccination and vaccine hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines. The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post supports [the Medical board’s allegations]. 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.”
In 2018 I suggested that the Medical Board specify in the code of conduct that lawful political and religious expressions outside of work can never be considered violations of the code. The suggestion was not adopted and I believe that we are seeing the fruit of that here.
Doctors pay the Medical Board over a thousand dollars a year and, apparently, that money can be used to remove their livelihood for expressing political or religious convictions outside of work (regardless of how sound their practice of medicine is). A truly disappointing saga that makes me question whether the Medical Board can be trusted.