Advokatnaevnet (Attorney Tribunal)
Advokatsamfundet
Kronprinsessegade 28
1306 København K
Re: Misconduct complaint against Niels-Erik Hansen, Dokumentations- og Rådgivningscenteret om Racediskrimination (DRC) - Breach of confidentiality, dishonesty, frivolous behavior, misuse of resources
At the end of 2014 I met with Niels-Erik Hansen (NEH) at the DRC. I explained that comments in the Danish news media, such as Jews/Muslims “mutilate babies” were being promoted by the scientific dishonesty of several Danish sexologists. He agreed that this was a case for the DRC and said he would himself prepare the complaint to the UVVU.
While he stated he would attempt to complete this before the end of 2014, I received no information from him even though repeatedly asking by email for copies, status of the complaint, etc. When I met with him a few months later, he explained that he had never filed a UVVU complaint before and didn’t feel he could do it. This seemed odd to me, since I had transmitted most of the information needed and a scientific evaluation of the article in question had already been done by the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force. This evaluation showed that the target article’s claims were scientifically dishonest.
I then agree that I would prepare the substance of the complaint and he could prepare a letter, in Danish, citing the legal grounds for the complaint. A draft UVVU complaint was sent to NEH in May 2014. After repeated meetings at the DRC, it became clear that no progress was being made. I terminated my visits there in September 2014, when he did not affirm that he would assist me in response to a direct question about the cover letter.
The meetings between May and September covered several issues, but not the cover letter that was supposedly being prepared. Often the issues raised concerned other cases at the DRC. He repeatedly mischaracterized my case, for example, stating that there was a lot of opposition to “ritual circumcision” in Denmark. However, my case was not about ritual circumcision or even medically recommended circumcision, it was a scientific dishonesty case. The subject matter of the article in question was irrelevant to whether, for example, the article required a Conflict of Interest statement.
He repeatedly tried to discourage me from proceeding with the Complaint. For example, he explained to me that while the “good parent” in the USA was expect to circumcise the male child, the good parent in Denmark was expected to not circumcise the male child. He also assured me that a ban would be passed by the Parliament.
On the other hand, he repeatedly indicated directly or indirectly that he was interested in promoting the case. For example, he told me that his teen-aged son had developed a painful foreskin infection. I believe this story was manufactured for my benefit. While about half of all uncircumcised men have a foreskin problem at some point in their lives, the likelihood of this problem occurring during the six months in question is exceedingly small. As part of a fact finding process for this complaint, an investigation of medical records, an interview with the mentioned son, or a sworn statement from NEH could clarify this.
Finally, on the 20th of February 2015 I encountered NEH and the two leading figures in my UVVU complaint, Dr. Morton Frisch and Dr. Christian Graugaard, at a reception for a newly installed sexology professor, Annamaria Giraldi:
While this could have been a chance event, it does make it appear that NEH, Dr. Morton Frisch, and Dr. Christian Graugaard move in the same social circles. These people appear to have had a common interest in stopping or, at least, delaying the filing of my complaint. The high point of the year, in terms of the male circumcision debate, was: Folketingets Tværpolitiske Netværk for Seksuel og Reproduktiv Sundhed og Rettigheder afholder i samarbejde med Folketingets Udenrigsudvalg en høring den 22. oktober kl. 13-16 i Fællessalen på Christiansborg.
Dr. Frisch was one of the speakers on the program and the delay of my UVVU complaint ensured that he would not be subject to challenges concerning his scientific findings. The effect of my complaint was demonstrated by the fact that Dr. Frisch terminated his opposition to male circumcision on Facebook after that complaint was filed:
A post from that Facebook page is contained in my email to NEH (14 6 10 June 2014 Foreningen SOS mod Racisme i fælles kamp for rituel omskæring). There is a saying that “Justice delayed is justice denied.” This appears to be a valid observation here.
It is likely that NEH informed the Doctors of his involvement in my case, thereby breaching professional confidentiality. I doubt if Niels-Erik Hansen could have resisted relating his “little joke” on me at a chance meeting. By calling Dr. Frisch and Dr. Graugaard before the Tribunal, this question could be answered.
NEH acted in a frivolous manner. He repeatedly stated he would assist me, while clearly not intending to do so. This was dishonest in an indirect manner and explicit dishonesty may have been involved, as I suggest above.
Finally, NEH made use of the resources of the DRC to further interests in conflict with the goals of the Center. He used DRC email, office space, and reputation for his own purposes.
While some of these events occurred more than one year ago, they form part of a whole, which deserves to be treated as a single unit. I ask the Tribunal to extend the deadline for submission of these earlier events, so that they can be included in this investigation.
(Interested persons can request the cited attachments)
The above statement "Dr. Frisch terminated his opposition to male circumcision on Facebook after that complaint was filed" is no longer true. He has resumed his activity, but blocked me so I can't see it.
ReplyDelete