Caldron Pool has been granted exclusive access to Dr. Jereth Kok’s cross-examination transcript.
Please consider supporting Dr. Jereth Kok’s much-needed GiveSendGo legal defence here.
Dr. Kok spent an entire day on the witness stand at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last month, during his own trial for professional misconduct—a trial for which he has waited 5 years while suspended from practice under emergency powers.
Examination-in-chief was conducted by Dr. Kok’s barrister, Mr. Stephen Moloney. Dr. Kok then endured an approximately four-hour hostile cross-examination by counsel for the Medical Board of Australia.
On Abortion
When asked about his beliefs on abortion, Dr. Kok responded,
“My belief as a Christian is that God creates life and that all human life is sacred and precious from conception until death.
“I believe that abortion is the intentional killing of a small human being inside the womb.
“Therefore, as a Christian, I regard that as being a grave moral wrong like the taking of any innocent life.”
To this he added, being a Doctor who is opposed to abortion,
“I believe it would be appropriate for me to engage in political activism against abortion, to march in rallies, [and] write letters to members of parliament.”
As well as “voice my opposition very strongly to abortion; and the principles behind that; and to inform people of the facts concerning abortion.”
Qualifying what he meant by strong opposition, Dr. Kok said, he considers it an “obligation” to oppose abortion “in a way that is respectful to other practitioners,” and other members of the community.
Under oath, Dr. Kok answered “no,” when asked if he would ever carry out an abortion.
If a situation arose where a woman asked him to perform a “therapeutic abortion” Dr. Kok replied,
“I would instruct her that she – or advise her that she can see another doctor in the practice who would be able to help her who doesn’t have my reservations about that issue.”
On COVID Vaccines Using Aborted Babies
Dr. Kok was then asked to account for his 2020-2021 criticism of the “use of the foetal cells” in the pharmaceutical response to COVID-19.
He replied,
“It became known during that time that one of the COVID vaccines, the AstraZeneca vaccine had as part of its manufacturing process used products derived from an abortion.
“That had become a significant topic of discussion amongst the Christian community of which I’m a part.”
“I believe that it was important having become aware of this fact to inform the community that I was part of, the Christian community of – about the issue because it was an issue of such concern to us.”
When questioned about his use of the word “desecration” when sharing an article by John Piper, Dr. Kok said,
“I’m talking about the manufacturing process of the vaccine and the origins of the vaccine … the idea of desecration is that somebody has gone to the organs of a little girl who was aborted in the 1970s and without that little girl’s consent, taken cells from the organ and performed scientific experiments on them, and commercialised them and now is manufacturing therapeutic agents out of it. I consider that – that is – I consider that desecration … and that is why many Christians including the Archbishops as I mentioned earlier, have a very serious problem with [the] vaccines.
“…for many Christians, receiving any kind of product, whether it’s a vaccine or anything that has its origins in an unethical process, is deeply troubling to our conscience and deeply troubling to our sense of morality.”
On Tone and Social Media
Accused of “denigrating, demeaning, and slurring” abortion providers, Dr. Jereth Kok conceded that he should not have used terms such as “butchery”, “contract killer” and “industrial scale massacre” when speaking about abortion.
However, he also stated,
“When talking about a topic such as this – which is very controversial and emotive – there is always a potential to say things which other people will take offence at […]
“I don’t think that the possibility of causing offence or somebody taking offence is the same thing as demeaning somebody.
“It wasn’t my intention, in my mind, to demean anybody.”
When asked if he would continue to “participate in online commentary on abortion,” he responded, “I would when it is relevant and appropriate.”
On LGBTQ+ism
Answering questions about his views on homosexuality, Dr. Kok replied,
“Marriage between a man and a woman is the only proper place for us to express our sexuality.
“I believe that according to Christian teaching all other forms of sexual expression – that includes homosexuality – is contrary to the will of God; and therefore sinful.”
Dr. Kok further explained that he “accepts there are a proportion of people who experience involuntary (indistinct) romantic attractions.”
“I don’t believe that people should be blamed for their involuntary feelings, however, I believe that Christians who have those feelings are obliged to resist those feelings.
“Not act on their sexual attractions in such a way that would be contrary to Christian morality.”
Questioned about how he expressed his views online, Dr. Kok reminded the tribunal of his context, stating,
“Many of them occurred on a Christian site and in the context of discussing with other very committed Christians what we believe about these topics.”
His interrogation included a Babylon Bee article satirising transgenderism. (See here).
The article drew attention to how transgender theory negated bisexual identity, because the “B” asserts binary, male, and female biology.
“I believe that like all other mammal species we exist in two sexes, the male sex and the female sex,” Dr. Kok explained.
On What Is a Woman?
Further defending his views on the question of gender identity, Dr. Kok said,
“I regard if somebody is a male it does not make sense to say that they’re – someone could have a male sex but be a woman.
“I also don’t accept concepts such as that sex [can] change or gender can change.”
Referring to XX and XY chromosomes, Dr. Kok said, “I don’t accept that there are multiple genders beyond male and female.”
When asked why he wrote posts reaffirming binary biology, Dr. Kok responded,
“I believe that [gender] ideology is very, very dangerous.
“I believe that the practices that are being carried out, that is, the gender transition practices, I believe they’re unethical.
“I believe that they are harmful to people.
“Because of my convictions on this matter – both from a Christian morality point of view, and from a medical ethics point of view – I believe it was very important to speak about this, and share my opinion with people, particularly in the Christian community.”
On “Gender Affirming Care”
Dr. Kok was grilled about using the words “butchery” and “mutilation,” to which he replied,
“Personally, I believe that the word mutilate is an accurate technical description of what happens when you unnecessarily destroy bodily functions, body parts.
“I perceive a parallel with genital mutilation so that was the reason I wrote that.”
Asked if he would use those words in future, Dr. Kok replied, “not as a doctor.”
“I would be very hesitant to use that word going forward because I recognise that can cause offence to people who have undergone those sorts of procedures.”
“Mutilate is a strong word which causes offences. I would re-word it.”
Giving reasons for his response in that particular context, Dr. Kok explained,
“One of the points I was making in that post was that someone who – a man who undergoes gender surgery remains a man.”
Concerning his remarks on Bill Muhlenberg’s website, and Eternity News, Dr. Kok defended sharing his personal opinions on transgenderism and homosexuality.
Dr. Kok was grilled for describing (as opposed to diagnosing) transgenderism as “pathologically delusional,” and homosexuality as brokenness; a “disordered sexuality.”
When asked by the medical board if he thought sufferers of gender dysphoria might be upset with “their sexuality being classified as a mental illness,” Dr. Kok replied,
“I would say that unless you think of mental illness as something which is a flaw or a deficiency, simply to say that is not denigrating.”
(See more of Jereth’s thoughts here).
On Multiculturalism and “Genocide”
In one instance the Medical Board attempted to extend culpability to Dr. Kok for comments made by other people on his Facebook page. The Board’s counsel was quickly shut down by Dr. Kok’s representatives due to irrelevance.
Dr. Kok was asked why he did not delete “unsavoury” comments made by other people, to which he responded, “I don’t believe it’s my job to go around deleting comments and … curating my page in that sort of way.
The cross-examiner then quizzed him about terms like “extermination” used in reference to a Bill Muhlenberg article discussing foreign aid funding abortions. Dr. Kok said he was referencing Westerners “paying for and perpetrating abortions and depopulating and culling of human beings in those poor countries.
“My comment was echoing Bill […] everyone who read that article and read my comment knew what I was saying.
“We’re here talking about exterminating – exterminating poor people using family planning, which we all ferociously oppose.”
(See further on this here.)
On Racism and Same-Sex Marriage
Dr. Kok, responding to accusations of racism, said he was sarcastically referring to Asians and Africans as “primitive yellow and black people,” in a “political counter” to gay marriage.
Dr. Kok explaining the context noted, he was criticising the June 2015 U.S Supreme Court ruling in favour of gay marriage.
“My point there is to take a shot at this idea that gay marriage is – it’s progress, it’s human rights, it’s enlightenment.”
There is, he argued, a “superior arrogant attitude towards other people in the world who don’t agree with it, and that includes most Asian countries.”
Testifying before an all-white tribunal and an all-white prosecution team, Dr. Kok added,
“I am a yellow person.
“I am from Asian heritage and … the countries which form my background don’t agree with same sex marriage.
“I consider it arrogant that – like a colonial attitude – that we need to go to your countries, and we need to educate you, we need to enlighten you with our values. That’s the point I’m making there using satire.”
When challenged about the risk of satirical online comments being misunderstood by readers, Dr. Kok pushed back by saying,
“My view is that if we’re going to take that sort of concern about hypothetical misunderstandings, then one should never use sarcasm, one should never use satire, one should never use language in an ironic way and should only speak in a woodenly literal way lest they be misunderstood, and I don’t agree with that.”
On “Ching Chong.”
The all-white prosecution also read out allegations about posts presumed to be “derogatory” because they contained the words “ching chong.”
The Australian doctor with Chinese ethnicity, replied,
“In a light-hearted way, [I was] speaking about my own race.”
Pressed further on the politically incorrect language, Dr. Kok answered,
“I’m using it as a Chinese person, as a way of […] reclaiming the word in a light-hearted way.
“I saw that as unproblematic.”
Schooled by his white interrogator on how Chinese people might find what Dr. Kok said offensive, he remarked,
There is a risk some may not see the humour in it, “had it come from the mouth of a person of European ancestry or a different race.
“It depends on who’s saying it and in what context.”
On Lockdowns
Dr. Kok was questioned directly about a meme containing the words “1800-ima-nazi”.
In his response to the extended charge of ‘deriding, demeaning, and slurring people who followed public health orders,’ Dr. Kok, said,
Living in Melbourne during the lockdowns, was a “nightmare.”
“We suffered a lot of hurt during that time through the 260 days of stage 4 lockdown […]We had someone very close to us, his whole life just fell apart because of the lockdowns.
“We saw, that the government was acting in a way that was harsh, authoritarian, that had removed all our basic rights, and I objected very strongly to all of that. I saw it all as unnecessary, unjustified, as a massive overreach, causing a lot of harm to our community.”
To this, Dr. Kok asserted,
“I was speaking as a citizen living through that, nightmare, to oppose, and protest against our government’s actions.
“This was a political protest and something that I think should be noted, is many of these posts were satire and humour.
”One of the ways that we dealt with the hurt that we were experiencing during that time was to resort to humour”, he concluded,
“None of this was intended to insult people who followed the health orders. I followed the health orders personally.”
On COVID Vaccines
It’s alleged that Dr. Kok’s personal use of social media “legitimized anti-vaxxers or vaccine hesitancy, by giving misleading information about the vaccines.”
“I object to being called an anti-vaxxer. I’m not an anti-vaxxer.”
Nothing posted was a recommendation against people getting vaccinated; however, Dr. Kok had shared twelve Facebook posts objecting to vaccine mandates and the segregation of churches, endorsing the Ezekiel Declaration, and highlighting the abortion links of a COVID vaccine used in Australia.
Clarifying his position, Dr. Kok explained,
“I object to coercive and punitive policies implemented by the government, towards pushing people against their will to be vaccinated, because I believe in individual autonomy.
“In a medical context, I believe in patient autonomy and people being able to do – choose or decline to have treatments.
“I opposed the implementation in Victoria of mandates which caused a number of my friends to lose their jobs because they didn’t want to be vaccinated.”
This oral evidence given by Dr. Kok, together with his witness statement, and evidence from six expert witnesses called before the tribunal, will be instrumental in deciding whether Dr. Kok is found guilty of professional misconduct.
If found guilty, he will face sanctions ranging from compulsory re-education to deregistration from the profession.
Closing arguments will be heard by the tribunal in October before they adjourn to make their ruling.
There are 85 allegations relating to social media use, accusing Dr. Jereth Kok of “denigrating, demeaning, and slurring” abortionists, the LGBTQ+, and the government.
The list of “offences” covers a range of subjects, such as abortion, transgenderism, and – ironically – bureaucratic overreach.
The Australian doctor’s case is fast becoming a crucial precedent in Marxist struggle sessions vs. the defence of classical liberal freedoms.
Implications co-join a defence of free speech with defending freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
To recap, Dr. Kok is being punished for posting his private opinions and beliefs on social media as a private citizen.
Authorities making no allowances for the separation between the personal and professional spheres sets a precedent for regulatory overreach that borders on the absurd.
This puts science and the scientific community also on trial.
Banning doctors from practising their vocation has the potential to impede, if not, harm medicine, by hindering research, freedom of conscience, and informed consent.
Doctors, who rely on the scientific method, have an obligation to offer a well-considered second opinion, even if that means offending political sensitivities surrounding medical consensus.
If the scientific community isn’t watching Dr. Jereth Kok’s case closely, it should be.
You must be logged in to post a comment.