When public figures speak, their words carry weight — all the more so when those figures hold positions of influence in organisations that seek to shape the national discourse. That is why the recent comments by Professor Peter Davis, trustee of the Helen Clark Foundation, about antisemitic graffiti found in Wellington are not just insensitive — they are deeply concerning.
The graffiti in question featured classic antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories — material widely recognised as hateful and dangerous. Rather than offering a clear and unequivocal condemnation, Davis appeared to downplay the seriousness of the incident, suggesting that attention given to it was somehow politically motivated or overblown. This response not only dismisses the lived experience of Jewish New Zealanders, but undermines efforts to address the very real resurgence of antisemitism both here and globally.
This is not an isolated lapse in judgment. Davis has a history of posting content that could generously be described as politically charged, and less generously as bigoted — particularly when it comes to Jewish concerns or Israel-related issues. But the implications of his most recent commentary are especially damaging in light of the role he plays as head of a foundation that seeks to influence government policy and promote inclusive public values.
Just last month, the Helen Clark Foundation released a report on social cohesion in Aotearoa, identifying key risks to New Zealand’s sense of unity and mutual trust. Among the threats listed were online misinformation, racial and religious scapegoating, and the erosion of trust in public institutions. The report rightly emphasised the importance of leadership in promoting a shared sense of belonging and respect among diverse communities.
How, then, can the Foundation reconcile its mission with the public conduct of one of its trustees?
At a time when Jewish communities around the world are feeling increasingly vulnerable (amid rising antisemitic incidents, vandalism, and online abuse) the casual dismissal of a blatant act of antisemitic hate does not promote social cohesion. It fractures it. It sends a signal that some forms of hate are less worthy of attention. It implicitly validates the idea that antisemitism can be tolerated (or even rationalised) if it aligns with certain political agendas.
This double standard is not only morally bankrupt, it is dangerous. Social cohesion cannot be built on selective empathy. A community’s cohesion is measured not by how well we treat the majority, but by how we respond when minorities are targeted and maligned.
The Helen Clark Foundation must take seriously the dissonance between its public messaging and the behaviour of its leadership. If it is to remain credible as a voice for inclusive policy and community wellbeing, it cannot ignore comments that run directly counter to those values. That begins with a public clarification of its stance on antisemitism and an honest reckoning with whether Peter Davis’s leadership aligns with the principles the Foundation claims to champion.
Peter Davis should step down from his role as trustee of the Foundation. His continued presence undermines the integrity of the organisation and casts a shadow over its contributions to public debate. A foundation committed to social cohesion cannot be led by someone who so casually dismisses the significance of antisemitic hate. There is no place for equivocation on bigotry — especially from those in positions of influence.
New Zealanders deserve a civil society led by individuals who take bigotry seriously — without caveat, without deflection, and without prejudice. Anything less is a failure of leadership. And silence, in this case, is complicity.
