Philip Pocock, who has been sanctioned by medical authorities for his views on homosexuality, says he is the victim of a ''ridiculous'' witch hunt by an incompetent medical board that has denied his right to free speech.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson has warned medical authorities should be careful in restricting free expression of practitioners, even if their view are ''repugnant''.

Mr Pocock rose to internet fame in 2012, when he was standing in an ACT local election, for calling for laws against gay sex and for the legal right to discriminate against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

In the aftermath of the publicity, the ACT and national medical authorities received 19 complaints from members of the public, mostly alleging the former public servant had brought the psychological profession into disrepute.

As part of his tilt at a seat in the territory's Legislative Assembly in 2012, Mr Pocock declared that ''a true 'union' only occurs in heterosexual vaginal intercourse and homosexual unions not only deserve no special rights but must be seen as … destructive behaviours that should be actively discouraged''.

''I believe sodomy of man or woman should be regarded as a criminal offence and while people do not have the right to go 'poofter bashing', to use colloquial language, they should have the right to discriminate in terms of employment, accommodation, etc, as they do in dealing with drug addicts, etc.''

Mr Pocock received 651 votes in the election.

After investigating the complaints, the Psychological Board of Australia has imposed strict conditions on Mr Pocock's licence to practice, forcing him to submit to a regime of supervision from another practitioner for 12 months.

On Wednesday Mr Pocock said he already lodged an appeal with the ACT's administrative appeals tribunal and said there had been no complaints from patients about his professional conduct.

''I've never had a formal complaint against my practice. It's a witch hunt basically,'' he said.

''I argued that I have a right as a citizen to participate in politics and express my religious views.''

Mr Pocock said he was always open to new patients about his views on sex and sexuality and would refer patients who had difficulties with his opinions to another practitioner.

''In terms of seeing patients, I explain my position and offer to refer them on. I say that I don't agree with homosexuality or adultery, they're not kosher acts, but the Psychology Board does and if someone wants to be referred on [to another psychologist], then I'll refer them on,'' he said.

Mr Wilson said the psychological board needed to be careful.

''He is entitled to his repugnant views, but free speech comes with responsibility,'' he said. ''The issue comes down to if this is a responsibility for the board and they should be wary of imposing their personal standard, basically threatening people's livelihoods on the basis of their repugnant views.

''They of course have the legal right to decide who can practice but they need to consider very seriously whether they think that just because someone expresses extreme and repugnant views, then [is that] sufficient ground to limit their capacity to practice?''