Springbok tour

Press, 23 September 1980, Page 16

Springbok tour

Sir, — John Small (September 20) is not seriously suggesting the thousands in the work force that come from black Africa are in South Africa to work as slaves. Yes, anti South African supporters are practising selective morality. — Yours, etc., D. J. DUMERGUE. September 20, 1980. Sir, — Since the rugby administration in New Zealand accepts as its guiding principle, non-interference by the Government in sport, why does it accept South . African teams whose selection has been directly and indirectly interfered with? From the day they were bom non-white, all but a handful of blacks, Coloureds and Asians have been eliminated from possible Springbok selection. Unequal opportunity to all spheres of life, including sports facilities, is enshrined in South African law. Yet still the N.Z.R.F.U. extends a warm welcome to supporters, of that inequality, the far-from-representative white Springboks. There is a universally accepted sporting code of selection on merit, with the implication that all players have equal opportunity to become merit-worthy.' Surely when a government denies a majority of its citizens the right of selection on merit to its national teams, as does South Africa, sportspeople from other countries have an obligation to boycott those teams for the long-term goal of a fair deal for all sportspeople. — Yours, etc., CAROL FIELDING. September 20, 1980. Sir, — One of the headlines in “The Press” today says, “Hundreds are still dying in Africa.” The article describes the immense human tragedy in East Africa of children dying because of drought and war. We have seen films of the starving children in Uganda and who could even forget those thousands upon thousands of human skeletons of Ethiopians. Yet South Africa, which admittedly has an almost insoluble problem with its increasing millions of blacks, still manages to keep them well fed, and it gets criticism from our clergy all over a game of rugby. — Yours, etc., E. GREGORY. September 18, 1980. Sir, — Bread and circuses in Rome; diversionary tactics in Wellington. What better way than “discussion among various groups in society and the Rugby Union” (“The Press,” September 16) for taking the heat off the following Government problems: (1) Electricity prices, international deals on smelters, unnecessary (?) hydro schemes and ecological spoliation. (2) Increasing unemployment and increasing closures of small businesses, especially South Island Ones. (3) Election results. (4) Freedom of the press, _ and especially; (5) The visit of a nuclear vessel? The last mentioned highlights the basic difference between the Olympics and South African rugby. America, a powerful ally, cannot compare with poor black Africa. “I’m not quite sure what more I could do,” said Mr Taiboys. May I remind him. For America’s sake some “Olympic” threats were: no Government funding for non-conforming sport; no leave for public servants; no import licences for businesses remotely involved with an Olympic team. For Africa? Diversion! — Yours, etc., . B. ROBERTS. September 18, 1980.