Veitch — Will justice be done?

The broad outlines of Tony Veitch’s assault on his former partner are now becoming clear. So are some very disturbing issues about the way that domestic violence and celebrity crime  are treated in this country.

Rather than reporting a serious crime to the proper authorities, Veitch’s lawyers seem to have colluded in an attempt to cover it up by buying the victim’s silence. Don’t lawyers have any responsibilities to see justice done?

Paul Litterick has suggested, “Let’s make pies of [Veitch] and then force-feed him to his lawyers”; or perhaps, name and shame the lawyers if we’re too squeamish. I don’t think I’d go quite as far as using this particular recipe for humble pie, but can’t those involved in the attempted cover-up be charged with obstructing justice?

But he’s come clean you say. He’s already paid up for his crime. It’s the victim’s free choice so that should be it, were it not for the “man haters”. Nothing to see here Move on. (And that’s a sampling of just 16 minutes of kiwiblog comment.)

Sorry, but it took some time before the dramatic public apology, and that had all the hallmarks of one of those spin-doctor orchestrated displays of public contrition that errant sports players and politicians make in order to control the damage. Worse, he undermined his message. As Julie at The Handmirror puts it:

“…it’s good that he apologized and it’s great that he did so publicly. What would have been more helpful would be if he had not only said “no excuses” and admitted that he had a year of counselling after the event, but also if he had stated, from the pulpit that the media has given him, that it’s not ok, it’s never ok, and if you even find yourself thinking about doing this then you should get help.”

It is also instructive to contrast TVNZ’s careful treatment of someone who has admitted an assault — he’s still an employee — with its immediate dismissal last year of a security guard with 24 years loyal service, who had the temerity to challenge politely a public figure over her publicly expressed views. (Hat-tip to lefthandpalm for pointing this out.)

Well, there are some differences. The security guard fessed up straight away and Christine Rankin may have been happy to testify as to what was exchanged. Also, any payments for lost earnings, injury to feelings and so on are much less for a security guard than a major TV and radio personality, so the downside risks of an unjustified dismissal ruling are not so great.

Nonetheless. The TVNZ executives are happy to deprive a low-paid worker of his livelihood for speaking out of turn, but appear to be willing to wait and see with someone who has confessed to a criminal act. And it’s not that they could be unaware of the desperate need for a change in NZers’ attitudes to domestic violence, either.

Inexcusable. Maybe Paul’s right, but we should serve up Veitch pie to the TVNZ executives as well as the lawyers.

Update: How ironic. We get greater moral leadership from gossip columnist Rachel Glucina! No, true. She writes, “It took over two days for the usually prone motor-mouth to utter that one little word [sorry]… in my opinion no one can ever use the pressures of work life and lack of sleep as an excuse for violence… Sorry can indeed be the hardest word, especially when you’re Tony Veitch, TVNZ and RadioSport with a helluva lot to lose.” And much more. (Hat-tip: TUMEKE!)

Update2: According to the Herald, TVNZ executives are, “considering keeping Veitch off air until after the Olympics – but then allowing him to return to work.”

Advertisement

Tags: gender politics, TVNZ, Veitch