Students defend ban

Press, 12 January 1981, Page 6

Students defend ban

The University of Canterbury Students’ Association haa defended its policy of banning South African residents from its facilities. "The Press” has received several letters from readers, saying that the association had no right to institute such a policy, because “taxpayers funded the building.”

However, the association’s president, Ms Katrina Amos, said that the taxpayers’ rights did not come into the issue.

“The Students’ Union building was funded half by the union .and half by the university,” she said. Did the public hive any right to say who could use the facility? “Certainly not,” she said. . ,

She “had not thought” about what would happen if a black or Coloured South African wanted to enter the building. No policy had been formulated. The association believed that all the South African residents in Christchurch for the Veteran Games were white. ,

Leaflets and pamphlets were advertising the student’s policy, which was decided by an executive, taking into account opinions from union meetings. A statement , received by “The Press” from a group

describing itself as “Anti HART activists,” said that oh Saturday, members had removed a notice in the Students’ Union building banthe South African residents dents. "We are concerned that the reputation for hospitality for which Christchurch is justly proud is being lost. We do not think that the public is in sympathy with either HART or HART’S student friends, and we believe that most people in Christchurch will welcome both the Souht African residents in question and our actions,” the statement said. “We believe that this discriminatory notice • was posted up by a minority of students who do hot represent the main student body of opinion. We wonder how many students, were polled before this obnoxious notice was put up?” it said. The spokesman for the group did not wish. to be named. ‘ . Another member of the troup spoken to last evening eclined to give her name, but said that the group consisted of about 12 people of all ages. ■ a- . The members. were friends who “just happened to be together round a swimming pool and who had seen the opening, ceremony of the Games and the pathetic display by HART.”

They had thought -the demonstration by HART in "poor taste.” On being questioned, she said the group was made up of white New Zealanders. It believed that politics should not enter, into sport. The group, which planned to remain “unofficial.” would possibly stage a counterdemonstration ■ the next time HART demonstrated against the inclusion of South Africans ih the Games.

HART said last evening that it would endorse further direct action aimed at South African competitors at the Games.

Protesters had disrupted the performance of Danie Burger in a hurdle event yesterday to highlight the participation of South Africans, said HART’S South, Island co-ordinator, Mr S.l Bayliss. Mr Bayliss asserted that the Government had “turned a blind eye” to South: African competitors in the Games.

“Clearly the deception is continuing as each day of the Games goes by and the Government’s credibility ih asserting that the Gleneagles Agreement is being upheld is in tatters,” he said.

Mr Bayliss described disruptive action by HART at the Games as an “absolute last resort”.