The Springbok tour

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33147, 10 February 1973, Page 14

The Springbok tour

Sir,—-Current public interest in the proposed tour by a South African Rugby team is immense and the opinion of the public regarding this controversy is based largely on the information provided by the news media. Under similar circumstances in the past, the impartiality of the news media has justifiably not been questioned because accurate and unbiased coverage has generally been given. The CHTV3 interview of “three randomly selected members of the public” on Monday. February 5, displayed that the N.Z.B.C. can no longer be trusted to provide unbiased reporting as they have surreptitiously taken sides and become a (source of propaganda. This interview was a farce and should have been preceded-by the announcement that it was to be a party political broadcast. Is this an indication of (the role we can expect the i N.Z.B.C. to play in the future (controversies? —Yours, etc., A. FRIEDLANDER. February 7, 1973. ; [Mr I. Lawrence, manager (for CHTV3, replies: “Two senior staff members of the (news service spoke to people on the street at random i seeking views of the tour. A cross-section of opinion was isought and three people were ! brought to the ‘South Tonight’ studio for an interview. The programme could ;cope with no more than three ! people satisfactorily in the ; time available.”] Sir,—l feel that as a Rugby supporter, who will support this tour, that those who 4

want to go should pay for the costs of the police and the army. This will add to the cost of a ticket, but we have always supported the userpays principle. The tragic loss of the Commonwealth Games also deserves compensation to a degree.—Yours, etc I. J. O’DONOGHUE. February 7,1973. Sir, —A number of correspondents ask protesters to lump South Africa, Uganda and Russia together and damn all or none simultaneously with the same voice. At first glance they might seem to have a point but the circumstances of each case are different and so, therefore, are the arguments. Protest can either be general and try to lock at everything which is wrong at once, or it can be specific or "limited objective.’’ Both are valid and they complement each other. But the former fails to focus attention sufficiently to create the impact required to meet specific situations. It would therefore be inappropriate in the present argument. I think we may be sure that H.A.R.T. and C.A.R.E. are just as concerned about all other situations where there is injustice but at the moment the tour and our internal race relations are of immediate and urgent concern.—Yours, etc., G. C. SUGGATE. February 9, 1973. t Sir,—This morning’s paper carried a report of a New Zealand tour by an Australian Aboriginal Rugby league team. We assume that H.A.R.T, and C.A.R.E. will oppose this tour as vigorously as they intend opposing the Springbok, as both teams are selected on racial grounds. It will be a shame if the Aborigines’ games are disrupted by this minority element and because of this, our members would like to offer any assistance that the Rugby league may require to ensure that the tour is successful.—Yours, etc., P. R, JOHNSTON, Honorary secretary, Canterbury Branch W.A.R.D. February 9, 1973.

Sir, — “Standfast” argues , that “international sport is doomed” unless we let the white South Africans come and thus wreck that little international, the Commonwealth Games. Others talk of “blackmail.” Yet some Rugby supporters threaten force, and if they could con the Government into being indecisive, would that be blackmail? Others want “equal treatment” for Pakistanis, who have been adequately punished, and for! Russians, etc. Since Russia’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, I have boycotted everything Russian. Before the elections I said to a friend who is a! lawyer and an executivemember of the Labour Party that to me, trying to hold what remains of the Commonwealth together was the most important issue and, therefore, I would deny the South Africans visas. He said that would be an unfortunate “precedent,” but is it unprecedented to keep non-New Zealanders likely to provoke trouble out of the: country?—Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER, i February 9, 1973. ■ Sir,—These black African ; States certainly have a cheek They not only resent apartheid, a system bestowed on! ; their blacks by benign white; imen for their own good, but; carry this resentment of a I natural order of things to the wicked extreme of trying to shatter that holy vessel, New Zealand-white South Africa Rugby. Their use of (to coin a phrase) political blackmail, leads me to think that, pampered by U.N. permissiveness, these blacks have delusions of whiteness. — Yours, etc., J. DUGDALE. February 9, 1973. Sir,—-Both the Rugby! I Union and Mr Marshall,, Leader of the Opposition, argue that politics should be (kept out of sport and that 'therefore the Springbok tour should be allowed to proceed without Government interference. They persist in overlooking the fact that the South African Government;

has mixed politics with sport by apartheid legislation that only white South Africans are eligible for the Springbok team. Their acceptance of such a team inadvertently must mean acceptance of the) racial-political method ofj selection, even though they may declare themselves against racialism and politics in sport. Their willingness to allow South African racial politics to be mixed with New Zealand sport, thus besmirching New Zealand’s reputation and risking disaster for the 1974 Games, is hard to comprehend. Mr Kirk deserves to be complimented on his excellent letter to the Rugby Union and support for further measures that may be necessary’ when Parliament meets. — Yours, etc., L. F. J. ROSS. February 9, 1973. Sir,—Now that the Rugby Union has decided to go on with the South African tour in this country I wonder if the union and its supporters will be the first to protest against the rise in rates next year to pay for the loss on Commonwealth Games — especially if the Rugby Union : makes its big profit as before. 1 — Yours, etc., L.M. 1 February 8, 1973. i I Sir,—Most of us want the < Games; most of us want the < Springbok tour; but none of < us want blackmail. — Yours, i etc., i D.J.H. , February 8, 1973. t I Sir,—Elsie Locke has come j out with it at last! Might is | always right and only a fool would stand up for his principles if the opposition ap-, pears tuo strong—what one ; might call the “Hungarian j lesson.” Let me assure her, that opposition to the tour ‘ is neither strong nor widespread—merely noisy. If our attitude to international sport and culture is to be decided on ideological grounds, as the stirrers urge, then let ’ us be consistent. Let’s have no more Russian ballet, Chinese table tennis or (Christchurch academic please note) American art exhibitions. Having recognised Communist China for the sake of international harmony, let us engage reverse gear and ostracise South Africa for doing with laws and fences what the Chinese did with ' bullets and communes. Above all keep out all black Ugan- ■ dans and Biafrans, and while 1 we're on the job, kick out 1 the local communists from 1 our football teams and choirs. ! —Yours, etc., ! DIOGENES. February 9. 1973.