Apparently, the wife of the Indian High Commissioner has assaulted a male staff member. There are significant parallels here with the recent case of the Malaysian diplomat accused of some kind of assault. However, there will be one major difference: we won’t hear a whisper from the feminists in objection to how it was managed.

Parallels include:
– Someone who was part of the diplomatic embassy from another country was alleged to have committed a serious offence in NZ;
– Police consulted with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade “to facilitate the matter”;
– The situation was managed according to international agreement and NZ law pertaining to diplomatic posts;
– The alleged perpetrator is not being charged and will be allowed to leave NZ without further NZ actions;
– No negotiation with the Indian government appeared to be undertaken by NZ authorities in an effort to obtain permission to put aside international protocol in order to prosecute the alleged diplomatic offender.

Differences include:
– The alleged offender was female and the alleged victim was male;
– The alleged victim apparently was poor at English and unlikely to feel able to assert himself as the alleged victim in the Malaysian case was able to;
– The alleged victim did not want to press charges (or, more likely, agreed not to press charges under pressure from the Indian government and NZ officials, because initially he did tell police about the alleged violence against him which he would not have done if he really didn’t want the matter to be addressed);
– The seriousness of alleged violence appeared to be greater than in the Malaysian diplomat case; the alleged victim felt the need to escape to a night shelter where he was seen to be in a distressed state. There was no news information about injuries but it seemed likely the alleged victim suffered injuries;
– The consequences for the alleged victim appeared to be more serious than in the case of the Malaysian diplomat, because the current alleged victim lost his home and job as a result of the alleged violence against him;
– The incident amounted to domestic violence as well as workplace bullying, and possibly even involved home invasion;
– The alleged offender has had no need to leave NZ quickly but will be allowed to remain here in her diplomatic accommodation while she prepares to leave in an orderly fashion;
– The alleged offender will almost certainly not be required to return to NZ to face trial, as was the case for the Malaysian diplomat after feminst outcry.

With permission from the Indian government, police could have charged the alleged offender with domestic violence under NZ law regardless of the alleged victim’s preference. But we know that law was only intended to punish men and is never used when the offender is female and the victim a mere male.

The NZ government could have negotiated with the Indian government to obtain permission to prosecute this alleged violent offender but apparently did not do so, preferring to keep to normal international protocol that will reduce international embarassment and complications.

We might hope that journalists find the alleged victim, now conveniently out of the way back in India, to get details about how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ‘facilitated the matter’. But is it realistic to hope that journalists would take any interest in gender issues other than those portraying women as the disadvantaged lot?

Domestic violence has been a leading issue that feminists wanted addressed and it was feminist pressure that caused NZ law to be changed in order to enable police to prosecute alleged offenders even when alleged victims did not want prosecution. Further, the feminist outcry about the Malaysion diplomat was huge with demands that the NZ government should have negotiated with the Malaysian government to allow prosecution. The case was portrayed by feminists as evidence of a NZ ‘rape culture’ and of state callousness towards victimized women. The Malaysian diplomat was forced to return to face trial; that case has not yet been resolved or tested in Court but when it is we can look forward to a lot more shrieking from feminists claiming that sexism was at the basis of how that case was managed.

But will we hear any feminists complaining about the Indian case involving a male victim and female offender? Only when you see those winged pigs flying past your window.

“So what?” you might ask. “Of course feminists will be interested in ensuring an alleged female victim gets justice and might leave males to deal with their own issues.” However, such hyprocisy must not be ignored. If diplomatic immunity is to be reduced for violent offences this must apply for both male and female offenders. If domestic violence is ‘not ok’ then that surely must apply equally to male and female perpetrators. If feminists don’t criticize situations in which female violent offenders are allowed to avoid NZ justice then the basis of their moral arguments about the importance of gender equality and the unacceptability of domestic violence is called into question. The feminists’ stance becomes exposed as a quest simply for additional power and privilege for women without any real concern for upholding the moral principles they argue in support of their quest.

Well, that is consistent with most of what we see from feminists.