Golriz Ghahraman, a Green Party MP and self-proclaimed champion of human rights, has once again found herself in the public spotlight—this time for appealing a shoplifting conviction. While many of her supporters rush to defend her, this incident reveals an uncomfortable truth about the hypocrisy and double standards that exist when public figures behave badly.
Ghahraman’s shoplifting case strikes at the heart of the growing distrust people have towards politicians. It’s not just the crime itself—hell we have nothing against shoplifting—but the glaring disconnect between someone who puts themselves on a pedestal and her actions, and gets embroiled in a shoplifting case that smacks of privilege. Shoplifting is often viewed as a crime of desperation, typically committed by those struggling to make ends meet. But for Ghahraman, who enjoys a comfortable lifestyle as a public servant, it seems far less understandable. Instead of a desperate act of necessity, it reeks of entitlement.
The most troubling aspect of Ghahraman’s appeal isn’t just the crime itself, but the double standards on display. Had this been an ordinary person caught shoplifting, the likelihood of an appeal—let alone widespread sympathy—would be slim. Yet Ghahraman, armed with her privilege, connections, and legal expertise, has used every tool at her disposal to try to escape accountability. This shows a stark difference between how the elite and ordinary people experience the justice system.
Ghahraman’s ability to mount a legal defence and attempt to appeal a relatively minor conviction underscores the privilege that many politicians and elites enjoy. While countless New Zealanders are forced to face harsh penalties for similar offenses, Ghahraman is able to navigate the system with resources that the majority of people don’t have access to. This is exactly the kind of systemic inequality that she claims to be fighting against in her political career.
The media, particularly those aligned with her progressive values, have downplayed the severity of her actions. Instead of holding Ghahraman to account, many outlets have focused on excuses—mental health struggles, emotional difficulties, and personal stressors. While it’s true that no one is immune to these pressures, the leniency she receives from her supporters highlights the way public figures are often shielded from the same consequences that ordinary people face.
As anarchists we are critical of the way public perception is shaped by the media to protect those in power. While Ghahraman continues to enjoy the privileges of her position, many New Zealanders facing similar struggles are left to navigate a cold, unforgiving justice system that offers them no such empathy. This discrepancy reflects the deeper inequalities in society and highlights how those with power and influence are given a pass, while the working class and marginalised communities bear the brunt of the state’s punitive measures.
Ghahraman’s appeal was a calculated move to protect her political career and public image. This is behaviour of someone who wants to preserve their position of power at all costs. This incident should be a wake-up call for those who have blindly supported her and a lesson in the dangers of placing too much faith in politicians.
Politicians like Ghahraman, no matter how progressive they claim to be, are still part of a system that is designed to protect the powerful while punishing the weak. Her case is just another example of how deeply flawed and unequal that system is, even if her appeal was turned down.
As anarchists, we must remain vigilant in exposing these double standards and pushing for a system where true accountability exists—not just for the poor and marginalised, but for those who hold positions of power and influence. Ghahraman’s case should remind us all that the fight for genuine equality and justice cannot rely on politicians, but on the dismantling of the structures that perpetuate inequality.