I think I can make things a little more clear.
Here is the bulk of the issue.
That is saying that some people feel attacked due to the process of critique and criticism of the code and that should not happen.
You then couple that with the beliefs of the people now pushing for a change away from meritocracy you get a sense that what they want is worse code from "better people". That is to say, they would rather worse code from people that have better beliefs and or actions.
Explicitly, the new COC says its based on
https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
What is said there is this...
"This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces
when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of
representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail
address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed
representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be
further defined and clarified by project maintainers."
The issue with that if people are representing the project/community. You could easily argue that anything done in public by someone of sufficient importance is always representing the community and thus their code could be removed.
As of right now, this is all speculation, but, given the comments and history of the people that pushed for this it seems like the motivation could be there.