Rugby players for S.A.

Press, 20 December 1978, Page 20

Rugby players for S.A.

Sir, — Mr Thom (ConsulInformation) may have cause ito regret writing (December 18). His letter relating to the controversy over the latest sporting exchange is interference in New Zealand’s domestic affairs — a breach of the Consulate-General’s warrant. I have written to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, bringing his attention to another example of interference written by a colleague of Mr Thom, Mr Paul Lindhorst, the Consul-Gen-eral, printed in “The Press,” on Saturday. I have suggested that the Government honours its promise of closing the Consulate-General, using the latest example of interference as the pretext. I pointed out that this action would go a long way to remove doubts on New Zealand’s commitment to the ant i-apartheid struggle. There may be no law forbidding non-racial sport, but there are many legal obstacles. The Group Areas Act, 1950, Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, 1953, Proclamation R 228 of Group Areas Act, 1973, etc. Omission of this is misleading. — Yours, etc., GERALD DAVIDSON, i December 18, 1978.

Sir, — I cannot agree with the statement by John Marcussen, (December 16') that apartheid can, in any way, be classed as “racial inequality” or the “enslavement of blacks by whites,” as he should know it is merely separate development of the races. Compare this “sin” to conditions prevailing in Nigeria, where there is greed, filth, brutality, and corruption, facts admitted by John Marcussen, and additionally, enslavement of blacks by blacks, a long list of “sins.” It would appear that John Marcussen is going by “hearsay,” over conditions in South Africa. Ask any intelligent black African which African country he would prefer to live in and he would answer South Africa. The question

now arises, which of the two countries’ “sins” are more deserving of correction by agitation from such as Trevor Richards? Surely Nigeria should claim his undivided attention. — Yours, R. V. SHAW. December 18, 1978.