In the end, I decided to post it.
Hugh Young is a well-known anti-circumcision activist (or "intactivist", as they often call themselves) from New Zealand. He is the owner of the "circumstitions.com" website.
INTACT-L is a mailing list run by the anti-circumcision website "cirp.org", for discussion of anti-circumcision issues in general.
Recently, participants on INTACT-L have been discussing the anticipated policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics. One participant suggests that the anti-circumcision activists write a statement for the AAP:
Rather than waiting for them to do the wrong thing, as they surely will, let's tell them what the right thing is.
To which Hugh Young replies:
From: Hugh Young
Subject: Re: The AAP's new position statement on circumcision
Date: Feb 10, 2010 7:23:56 AM
A good point. Brian Morris drafted his version of a statement for the RACP but it was so over the top they would have laughed at it (though they still haven't issued theirs). We need to make ours something they could/should agree to. If it gets published so that people mistake it for the real thing, so much the better. If we can ease them out of legal action for past circumcisions, they'd appreciate that too - that's their big fear if they go straight from "neutrality" to condemnation without giving all present victims time to die off.
Now, if anti-circumcision activists want to write a "policy statement" for the AAP, that's up to them. It seems a waste of time to me, but it's their time to waste, after all. What I find really alarming here is that Young explicitly indicates that he wants to mislead people. He wants people to believe that the (hypothetical) version authored by the anti-circumcision lobby is the real policy statement.
I'm sorry to say that I believe that what's unusual here is the admission rather than the intent, but even so the admission is startling enough. It makes one think: if the anti-circumcision "message" is so strong, why would anyone feel the need to deceive people?
Does he not have any concept of ethics? Apparently not.