South African Rugby Tour

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28926, 20 June 1959, Page 12

South African Rugby Tour

Judged by the opinions expressed in letters to the editor of “ The Press ”, a substantial majority of the public disapprove of the. New Zealand Rugby Union’s decision not to consider Maoris for selection in the team to tour South Africa in 1960. Since this question came again to public notice at the beginning of this month, 26 letters on the subject have been received. They were not printed because they could add little of value to the long discussion which ran in the correspondence columns in September and October last year. The bare figures summarising the correspondents’ opinions are, however, of some interest:

For the Rugby Union .. 7 Against the Rugby Union 18 Neither for nor against 1 Some of the letters were written before the union announced its decision, some after. The views of those who approved the exclusion of Maoris were explicit enough; and most of the writers made it plain that they did not regard this as condoning South Africa’s racial policies. Few of those on the opposite side seemed to recognise that the real alternatives before the Rugby Union were a tour without Maoris or no tour at all. Most assumed that Maoris could be sent if the New Zealand Rugby Union so decided; and only one or two said plainly that they thought a team including Maoris would cause so much unpleasantness in South Africa that the tour should be abandoned forthwith. While it is true that the South African Rugby Union attached no conditions to its invitation, there were, in fact, conditions which the New Zealand union could not ignore—the ordinary conditions prescribed by accepted codes of international relations, which apply as much to sportsmen as to diplomats or private travellers. When a New Zealand sports body invites a team to New Zealand it does not lay down “ con“ditions”; nevertheless, it expects that the visiting team will obey the laws of New Zealand and conform to the accepted social code of New Zealanders. None of the correspondents who took issue with the Rugby Union (or with “The Press”) explained how they expected Maoris to be able to travel with and live with the team in defiance of the very rigid South African laws which segregate white from coloured in public transport, hotels, and places of assembly. Yet those who counted on the Rugby Union to constitute itself

a kind of missionary in the cause : of racial equality—

whether by breaking off diplomatic relations with the South

African Union or by taking Maoris to South Africa against the convictions of most South Africans—may find some compensation in the effect of the New Zealand union’s decision. Either of these expressions of missionary zeal would surely have meant that no South African Rugby team would again visit this country. As it is, there is some assurance that future Springbok footballers will have the useful—perhaps salutary—experience of living briefly in a community which sets high store by the principle of racial equality and of finding —as past Springbok teams have found and acknowledged—that on the field of play colour need raise no arbitrary divisions in skill or sportsmanship or mutual respect.