HART defends tactics

Press, 12 January 1981, Page 14

HART defends tactics

Steve Bayliss, South Island co-ordinator, speaking for HART, replies to a leading article in “The Press” last Friday.•:

The editorial, “HART smears itself,” printed in “The Press” of January 9, in which HART was seriously taken to task, is challenged by the /local branch of HART. The suggestion that HART/“pull up its tactical socks" indicates a complete Tack of appreciation of the long-term policy and objectives of the organisation. HART strives for the cessation of all links, cultural, sporting and economic,/ between. New Zealand and South Africa until the discriminatory apartheid policies are dismantled. Therefore individuals, groups, and organisations who condone apartheid by continuing these Jinks may expect to be the object of protest. The' editorial decries the use of such tactics as intruding , into the planning meeting of the W.A.V.A. and noisily chanting at the opening ceremony of the fourth World Veteran Games, suggesting that such tactics will set back for years the wider .public acceptance of the campaign against apartheid. South African athletes- are .participating in the World Veteran Games, and HART believes such; tactics are apEropriate in the face of this latant violation of the Gleneagles Agreement.' ' In the 10 years of the organisation’s existence, HART has painstakingly and con-

sistently put the case against contact with South Africa before the New Zealand public. The ongoing activities of letter writing campaigns, delegations, school visits, information booths, preparation of educational material, film screenings and talks to churches, union and political party groups go unheralded. The editorial comment of January 9 is disappointing in the light of such constant work. The firm evidence that South Africans are participating in the World Veteran Games necessitated the disruption that HART initiated at the opening ceremony. HART does not take such action lightly. The organisation’s policy stresses that any action taken must be non-violent, and jneeting the wrath as was encountered on Wednesday is as distasteful to HART members as it is to the public This was not the rash action of a few hot-headed, antiapartheid protesters. It was the carefully considered and planned operation which occurred only after much soulsearching, both individually and collectively. All other avenues of non-disruptive protest had been explored and the demonstration of HART’s objection at the opening of the games was appropriate and legitimate.

The condemnation of vociferous protest in the editorial of January 9, ignores the increasing public awareness and debate in the last few days which is the direct result of the efforts of HART. It is sincerely hoped that the press will further the debate about the real issues involved without needless censure of legitimate protest. An example of the perceptive and challenging comment on this issue occurred in a previous editorial of January 7, which HART applauds wholeheartedly. Similarly, the editorial comments on the intemperate remark of Mr Gideon Tait deserve congratulation. (Before the demonstration by HART’s members at Queen Elizabeth II Park on Wednesday, public attention was attracted to the significant question of South Africans’ participation in the games. Both public and media attention were then diverted from this question to the wrongs and rights of a demonstration that provoked vigorous reactions which had nothing to do with the athletes’ views on apartheid or South Africans. HART continues to miss the point and continues to undo what might be productive work for its cause. The demonstators achieved nothing, in , our view, other than to avert attention, alienate some more people, and harden the views of still others who do not agree with HARTS’s goal. — Editor.)