The uproar over Marama Davidson’s comment about ‘cis white men and violence’ has shed light on something many suspected of the Human Rights Commission.

Thanks to documents via the Official Information Act, what’s come to light isn’t just the Commission’s inner mechanics, but a stark display of political bias and troubling opacity.

These documents reveal a Commission that seems to operate more as a political entity, favouring narratives from media outlets that align with its views.

When I first reported on Davidson’s comments (before other media followed) and sought the Commission’s input, the response was telling.

My inquiry sent their advisors into a frenzy, as evidenced by their internal emails that show a chaotic attempt at damage control and wordsmithing in their public statements.

One advisor’s email, which candidly references a radio show’s coverage and the resulting social media backlash, dismisses the public’s offence as mere groupthink, highlighting the advisor’s detachment from widespread discontent.

Additionally, an advisor suggested discarding my request for comment because they considered me ‘right of centre’ not “mainstream media” and ‘unregulated’—raising the question of who deems what’s regulated.

Is it the government, or is it because I’ve not indulged in the $55 million journalism fund?

Another advisor suggested preparing a statement, just in case “mainstream media” picked up on the story.

It will come as no surprise to many that the Public Interest Journalism Fund continues to supports news narratives that portray the Human Rights Commission in a favourable light.

Notably, my journalistic credentials, backed by the highest accreditation score from a respected international outlet, was ignored by the Commission. It appears they may not recognise that my media outlet stands among the select few that consistently highlights vibrant cultural happenings in Christchurch, to which I’m extremely proud of.

Such disregard for journalistic inquiry based on perceived political stances is a grave concern, running counter to human rights principles.

The Commission, tasked with promoting unity and diversity, appears to engage in exclusion based on such biases.

Despite their reluctance, a statement was released following my persistent follow-ups.

If the Human Rights Commission selectively engages based on political ideology, it’s not only failing its mission but actively subverting the ideals it’s meant to uphold.

The disclosed emails are incriminating, painting the Commission as a political tool rather than a neutral defender of human rights.

In a democracy, all voices, regardless of political affiliation, must be heard and valued.

The Commission’s actions suggest a bias we, as New Zealanders, must not only recognise but also vehemently oppose.

We can’t let our institutions become vessels for political motives.

We demand the Human Rights Commission be held accountable for its impartiality and transparency.

To the Commission, the message is unequivocal: Fulfill your role to engage with everyone, even those with differing political views.

The people of New Zealand expect and warrant a body that upholds the rights and voices of all, not a selective few.

The expectation is clear, and it’s evident that the Commission is now under scrutiny.