jack aug 18 paint work

A Christian baker who had a legal victory in the Supreme Court is being targeted with a third lawsuit over his refusal to bake cakes which push LGBT ideology.

Jack Phillips, a baker in the US state of Colorado, is being sued for refusing to bake a “gender transition” cake. 

Phillips rose to prominence when in 2012 he refused to bake a “same-sex wedding” cake.

The first legal action went all way to the Supreme Court which, in 2018, handed down a 7-2 decision in his favour.

The Christian Post reported:

The Supreme Court ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has been seen as one of the more important modern religious liberty cases to reach the high court. Though a decisive majority of justices sided with Phillips, the scope of the ruling was narrow in that it focused on the Colorado Commission's lack of neutrality. The high court did not weigh in on the deeper conflict between anti-discrimination statutes and the free exercise of religion and free speech.

A later second action against Phillips, for refusing to bake a “gender transition cake” – blue on the outside, pink on the inside – was not pursued by the state after the baker countersued.

However, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Phillips:

The same attorney who filed the second complaint has filed another lawsuit against Jack in state court. This latest lawsuit seeks monetary damages and attorney’s fees from Jack. If successful, it could bring about financial ruin for Jack and his family.

But that shouldn’t happen because Jack serves all people—he just can’t express every message or celebrate every event that’s asked of him.

And he shouldn’t be forced to.

No American should be bullied or banished from the marketplace simply for living and working consistently with their faith. But this new lawsuit threatens to do just that.

The state court heard oral arguments in the current (third) case last Thursday.

The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion for it to be dismissed.

last supper
By David d'Lima

Ahead of the forthcoming Easter commemoration, please allow me to share the following often overlooked civic and political implications of the Last Supper.​

Appreciation of the profound civic implication of the Last Supper requires a recognition of the meal's basis in the Passover. That commemoration from the time of Moses recollects God's judgement on a pagan nation whose leaders resisted the divine plan and persecuted Israel. 

In part the meal should remind us that God is angry with rebellious nations and will bring judgement to them.
Strange that our civic and church leaders are unwilling to at least raise the possibility of divine chastisement in relation to the current corona virus.
But if the leaders and people of the nations would repent and respond in faith, sinceChrist, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed(1 Corinthians 5:7), the judgement applicable to personal and national sins would be relieved.​

The civic dimension to the Last Supper is further appreciated as we recognise Jesus speaking about civic authority and servant-leadership directly after the Passover meal, by referring to the Roman emperor in four ways, noted in the Gospel of Luke:​
  • Jesus highlightedthe kings of the Gentileswholord it over them(22:25); (some Roman coins have fire on the emperor's head to assert his divinity).​​

  • Jesus referred to those whoexercise authority over the people(22:25).​​

  • He used the termBenefactors(22:25) - a title of emperors as noted by Philo (Flaccus10) who wrote aboutour saviour and benefactor Augustus.

  • Jesus referred tothe one who rules, and required him to be like himself -one who serves(22:26); (hence a cross on the crown of monarchs in our inherited Westminster tradition and other Christian-based systems).​
His call for servant-leadership has greatly influenced nations that uphold the Christian worldview. Heeding that call, the builders of the Westminster system gave Britain and her daughter nations, including many in the Commonwealth, the ambition towards civic service - provided by ministers (servants) of State who administer departments that facilitate ministry, not bureaucracy.​

Their vocation is refreshed as parliaments in the Westminster ethos open each daily sitting with prayer that God's kingdom come and his name be hallowed.​

prayer table 800

By Charles Newington

In Christian church services across the world, the story of the crucifixion of Jesus will be read again this Good Friday. This year, as the world is in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic, the suffering of Christ will have special significance.

One of the all too frequent tragedies of this pandemic is that so many people are dying alone or in the company of strangers, while their loved ones wait anxiously and praying for their recovery.

This is a special grief – that of not being close at hand when one’s loved one passes away. It seems an unforgivable absence.

What weight has been laid on the shoulders of health workers who become de facto family for the loved ones of the dying. How hard for them to convey a sense of the dignity and love of the dying when all around them are other people needing the same care. The health-workers on the front line are truly deserving of the nation’s gratitude.

I have been reflecting on the death of Christ and those who stood close to him in his final hours. Luke’s Gospel tells us that his mother was there, her sister, another friend and Mary Magdalene. Then a little further away stood John, the apostle in waiting.

Rome chose its most brutal and uncivilised form of execution for those who challenged or endangered its authority and social order. There is absolutely nothing to commend crucifixion. It was barbaric, excruciating and deliberately terrifying, sending a clear message to all that they should not mess with Rome. What Mary saw as she stood close would have been unrecognisable as her beloved son, disfigured and lacerated. What a model of a mother’s love.

With his dying breath Jesus gave John the responsibility of caring for his widowed mother – mindful of her part in his conception, birth and natural life. He commits her to the disciple with whom he had the most personal connection. John took her into his own home and cared for her as his own. What a model of a loving son.

Another person there was Mary Magdalene whom Jesus had liberated from the torment of seven demons. She was there in his final hours, she assisted in his hurried burial and returned again three days later at first light to attend to the customs for entombment. As she wept in the garden because of his missing body, the risen Christ made himself known to her. Her response was to fall in front of him and grab his feet.  What a model of a devotee.

The central figure, the crucified one, was in his suffering and death providing the world with a solution to the alienation and inexplicable suffering of human life and death. Why do we suffer? Why is God so distant, especially when we need him most? Why do we exist? There is no one-liner that carries the full scope of all that took place in Christ’s death. If we find it hard today, imagine those who stood close to the flayed frame of their Lord and Son on crucifixion day.

It was for us all – to settle any score, to pay any moral debt, to forgive any crime no matter how horrifying, to save any soul no matter how lost. The apostle Paul wrote “In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins against them…”  The perfect Saviour.

In this time when we are being reminded of our own mortality, I encourage you to make this truth your own by the simple, heartfelt confession: “In Christ’s death, God was reconciling us all of us to himself, not counting our sins against us. I believe this applies to me and I’m thankful to God.”

Grant us all grace O’ God, to live these brief lives in loving dignity and thankful service. Amen.

abortion tools

The headline from Australian Doctor (2/4/20) reads, “GP suspended for ‘endorsing genocide’ on social media”.

Free speech is one thing; incitement to violence is another. If Melbourne GP Jereth Kok has used social media to endorse genocide, then the decision by the Medical Board of Australia to suspend his registration is justified. If he has done no such thing, then the Board has acted disgracefully, wrongfully defaming Dr Kok and destroying his medical career.

We can judge for ourselves which is the guilty party.

Below is the one and only post in which Dr Kok refers to genocide, of the thirty or so posts presented by the Board to the recent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal appeal. Dr Kok shared this dossier of posts with a couple of support people last year and I can confirm that this is his only statement alluding to genocide.

Context is everything. Kok is commenting in 2012 on an article by Christian social commentator Bill Muehlenberg entitled, “When Aid Money becomes Killing Money”. Muehlenberg objected to the Australian Labor Government joining other Western governments in funding abortions in poor countries. He argued that “what we really have is coercive utopians from the West working overtime to decimate the populations of poor overseas nations” and quoted a pro-life leader from the US characterising such policies as “population control aimed at poor dark-skinned women”.

The staunchly pro-life Dr Kok posted this bitterly ironic comment:

Thanks to “family planning”, developed nations (Europe, Japan, North America) are in steep decline and are facing an impending financial and economic crisis that comes with an aged population.

See for example what is happening in Japan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12296077

Soon, our civilisations will be vanquished, and the Earth will be overrun by Black people. The solution is clear: we must take “family planning” to poor countries and exterminate them before it is too late!

Jereth Kok

Anybody with a reading age above 12 can tell, in context, that this is irony, a rhetorical device by which Kok scorns the decadent West for exporting its culture of death to poor countries. The Medical Board, however, asserts the exact opposite: that Dr Kok’s comment is an endorsement of genocide! Incredibly, the VCAT agrees, headlines come out about Kok endorsing genocide and both his reputation and career are trashed.

How can the Medical Board of Australia perpetrate such an absurd injustice? The Board has gravely defamed this GP and owes him an immediate apology and public retraction.

David van Gend is a GP in Toowoomba

steenhof SB BlackWhite 17 2 1024x1024

John Steenhof Principal Lawyer

Human Rights Law Alliance

With the unfolding Covid-19 crisis that has enveloped the world, everyone is facing uncertainty and anxiety. The isolation forced by this pandemic is forcing many Australians to reconsider their priorities. Our doctors, nurses and health professionals are being called on to stand on the front- line of fighting the coronavirus. Skilled doctors are in short-supply and they are a vital part of the response to the Covid-19 crisis.

In the middle of this pandemic, a Victorian tribunal just upheld a decision of the Medical Board of Australia to suspend a Melbourne GP using emergency powers - solely on the basis of his internet posts. This decision has important implications for freedom of speech, protecting the right to a fair trial, and the invasion of cancel culture into the law.

The Case of Dr Jereth Kok

Dr Jereth Kok is a Christian and a second generation Australian-Chinese GP with 15-years’ experience in the medical profession. In 2018, following an anonymous complaint, the Medical Board of Australia began investigating Dr Jereth’s internet posts without his knowledge. In August 2019, the Medical Board gave Dr Jereth notice that they proposed to suspend his licence to practice medicine because of his internet posts and gave him less than a week to prepare for a hearing. At the hearing, the Medical Board of Australia suspended Dr Jereth in advance of a full investigation or trial on the basis that it is in “the public interest”. This despite the fact that no patient has ever complained about Dr Jereth and there has never been any issue with how he practices medicine. On appeal, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the Medical Board’s actions and published its decision on 28 March 2020. The full details of Dr Jereth’s story and some analysis of the case can be found in my analysis of the Tribunal Decisionhere.

Dr Jereth is a good doctor. He does his job well. He treats his colleagues well. He treats his patients well. That doesn’t matter. Solely on the basis of his internet posts, this good doctor can’t join other doctors on the front lines of the battle against a deadly disease in 2020.

This happened not because Dr Jereth did the wrong thing but because Dr Jereth said the wrong thing – and all originating from an anonymous complaint.

Observations on the Case

First, observations need to be made about Dr Jereth’s internet posts. In its decision, the Tribunal did not republish any of Dr Jereth’s purportedly offensive internet posts. This makes commentary difficult. The Tribunal is careful not to make findings that Dr Jereth’s internet posts are actually offensive, but they say that they have a “real potential” to cause concern/offense to a range of groups and that some comments “appear” to denigrate others or “appear” to endorse violence.

The fact that the Tribunal is circumspect about calling the posts denigrating or offensive suggests that Dr Jereth’s internet posts were strongly stated and used much satire, spoof, parody and hyperbole but that they were not clear manifestos of violence, hate and denigration. Statements advocating violence are criminal matters for the Police, not matters for decision by regulators.

It also may be arguable that the medical profession has higher standards of conduct and that doctors must uphold the reputation of the profession when writing on the internet. That would clearly be a matter for guidance and education for doctors rather than draconian sanction.

Whatever one thinks about Dr Jereth’s posts, the central question is not whether they were wise, appropriate or elegantly stated. The question is whether internet posts alone justify use of emergency powers to effectively cancel a doctor’s career without a trial.

This has key implications for freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial and how “cancel culture” is now being grafted into law.

Freedom of Speech

All doctors are subject to the oversight of the Medical Board of Australia under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. This law gives the Medical Board (a bureaucratic and administrative body) exceptional power over doctors and other health practitioners. It allows them to take immediate action to suspend a doctor in a number of prescribed circumstances. These circumstances are not carefully defined and in fact the laws were amended in 2018 to give the Medical Board wider powers to take action against doctors where it is “in the public interest” to “uphold public confidence in the provision of services of medical practitioners”.

That this law has made it onto Australian law books is concerning. It is a great threat to fundamental freedoms to give far-reaching powers of censure to unaccountable administrative bodies. It is also extremely problematic for laws to provide vague and imprecise grounds such as “the public interest” on which those powers can be exercised.

Often times, the people administering these laws are members of a class of society that is uniform in socio-political viewpoint and part of a privileged administrative class that is so isolated from the “public” that they are least qualified to determine what is in accordance with the public interest.

The biggest threat of these laws is to freedom of speech and its parent. The Tribunal chillingly observed that Dr Jereth has “clear conservative leanings” and he expressed his views strongly. The problematic posts related to abortion, sexuality and transgender issues and there were also suggestions that his posts could be read as supporting violence and racism. The Tribunal considered that there is a risk that Dr Jereth’s convictions on these matters might bleed into his practice. The subtext seems to be that there is a reverse onus on conservative voices to positively prove that their views will not adversely affect their medical practice. This has the effect of silencing alternate points of view and dissenting voices.

Consider some of the comments made by doctors when this story was published in Australian Doctor news;

“‘There is no doubt that Dr Kok… has clear conservative leanings.’ And there you have it folks. What need to we have of due process (or even to release the evidence)? ‘Thought Crime’ is a crime in the Peoples Republic of Victoria!”

“I would comment but not anymore”

“Far to (sic) dangerous to comment. Disgusting result.” “I’ve just committed a ThoughtCrime by reading this.”

Right to a fair trial

A fundamental pillar of the rule of law is the right to due process and a fair trial.

Firstly, The Medical Board decided not to inform Dr Jereth about the complaint against him. This decision not to inform a doctor is usually only where a complainant may be at risk if the complaint is disclosed. In this case the complainant was anonymous. Dr Jereth’s accuser is faceless. The only thing we know is that it is not a patient or anyone who has actually had contact with Dr Jereth except through the internet.

Secondly, by not informing Dr Jereth the Medical Board could spend three months compiling his complete internet history and building its own set of accusations. The Medical Board paid external consultants significant sums to scrape from the internet 2000+ pages of Dr Jereth’s full history of internet posts from which they selected the purportedly offensive content. Dr Jereth had less than two business days to formulate a submission in response. He was given less than a week before he had to appear at the emergency hearing to face a severe sanction. This sanction had been proposed prior to Dr Jereth putting his position.

This approach by the Medical Board significantly prejudices Dr Jereth’s ability to obtain a fair hearing or even to prepare himself properly. Dr Jereth has the right to a fair hearing. It is difficult to see how that has not been compromised by a combination of bad legislation and over-reach by the Medical Board in the way that it has applied that law.

If emergency action was warranted by the Medical Board, it is perplexing that the Medical Board took over three months from receiving the initial complaint to propose abrupt action with such far- reaching consequences.

Cancel Culture 

Cancel Culture promotes destroying someone’s livelihood because of what they say. Speech is not met with speech. Speech is met with cancellation – boycotting, discipline and career threats. Cancel Culture targets the player and not the ball. Generally, this is done through social media campaigns and public backlash supported by complicit media support to cancel a celebrity or an entertainer.

Disturbingly, this modus operandi appears to be making its way into law and the rules that govern professions. In Dr Jereth’s case, the anonymous complainer(s) could have engaged with Dr Jereth’s ideas instead of complaining. They did not. The best way to respond to bad ideas is with good ideas. This allows viewpoint diversity and prevents bad ideas from becoming orthodoxy simply because those who have other ideas are erased. The complainants did not engage with ideas but instead chose to attack Dr Jereth’s career. The Medical Board has decided to enthusiastically take up those complaints and to use the full extent of powers to suspend Dr Jereth.

It is also clear that the Covid-19 crisis has not quarantined this administrative urge towards cancel culture. The Tribunal in review acknowledges that there is a public interest for doctors to be able to practice, particularly “in the current health climate where it is readily foreseeable that health services may be stretched to their capacity”. It matters not that we are in a world medical emergency not seen for a century and that Dr Jereth has never had a clinical complaint. Dr Jereth’s career is cancelled. He cannot practice medicine. He cannot contribute to the fight against the coronavirus, not because of any shortcoming of his practice, but because of the risk that his opinions mightbleed into his practice.


This heavy-handed approach by the Medical Board, now confirmed in the Tribunal decision, is concerning for those who cherish freedom and the right to a fair trial. The use of draconian emergency powers by a bureaucratic body based solely on a person’s ideas gives cause for great apprehension. In the present coronavirus crisis, we can see that cancel culture is not quarantined to our universities and arts communities, but it is now being used against our doctors and enforced by ourtribunals.