Springbok tour

Press, 28 March 1981, Page 14

Springbok tour

Sir,—As the Prime Minister has stated, the majority of New Zealanders want the Springbok tour cancelled because they abhor apartheid and wish to uphold the Gleneagles Agreement. Incalculable dam,age could be done to our prestige, sport and trade relations if the tour proceeds. The Government should not serve the myopia of the Rugby Union, or advance the political interests of South Africa by allowing the tour to take place. The Government has a mandate from the majority of citizens to change its policy as required, to act for New Zealand’s national interests by denying visas to the Springboks. The necessity for this step is becoming more urgent every day, as it becomes clear that the Rugby. Union places its interests before the national interests.—Yours, etc., L. F. J. ROSS. March 26, 1981.

Sir,—l have been reading a few letters on this page lately on the subject of the Springbok tour. It seems that HART, by its protests, is practising selective morality. I and many other New Zealanders are sick of a minority trying to dictate to us about who we should play sport with. Why don’t they protest against other nations that practise racialism r- Russia, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Even Australia, with its holier than thou attitude over the tour, has no room to criticise as its treatment of the Aboriginals leaves much to be desired. It seems that those countries are allowed to practise racism but not South Africa.—Yours, etc., THOMAS J. KEENAHAN. March 24, 1981.

Sir,—John Leslie (March 25) asks, “Why blacklist South Africa alone?” The answer is simple: the apartheid system in South Africa is enshrined in the laws of the Republic and was put there by a government democratically elected by white voters. Sporting boycotts against South Africa affect

those responsible for the apartheid system, the same white voters, and may have some effect through them in changing it. Sporting boycotts against other African countries, living under dictatorships, affect the players and supporters of sports in those countries, but they have no power to change the system. I recommend John Leslie and others interested to read an article by Patrick Laurence in your issue of January 23, 1981, in which he points out that recent changes in South Africa represent a "mere nibbling away” at the edifice of apartheid.—Yours, etc., J. B. C. TAYLOR. March 25, 1981. Sir, — The colossal nerve of HART in asking for the $lO,OOO which the Government has decided to withdraw from the Rugby Union, reflects the lengths to which these disruptive elements will go to achieve their objectives. With the Australian Government, backed by Dr Ordia, also displaying a hostile attitude towards the Springbok tour, this seems like an appropriate and opportune time for an all-out effort by tour supporters to uphold the individual right of each and every New Zealander to object to pressure from Australia (where there is apartheid), and Dr Ordia whose home country is Black African Nigeria where there is illtreatment of blacks which seems to be overlooked by Dr Ordia who operates under the guise of the president of the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa. He would be better occupied agitating for the more urgent relief of the starving blacks whose plight' is alleviated to some extent by South Africa. — Yours, etc., L. E. REID. March 26, 1981 Sir, — John Leslie at the conclusion of his letter (March 25) asks “South Africa-baiters” as he chooses to call those of us belonging to anti-apartheid groups: “Why blacklist South Africa?” The answer is that the white minority government of the Republic of South Africa makes it the only country in the world where national legislation embraces laws that discriminate against whole ethnic groups to the extent that virtually all precepts regarded as sacrosanct in the United Nations Declaration and Convention on Human Rights are denied to the majority of those living in that country. — Yours, etc., HEATHER M. SCHOFIELD. March 25, 1981. Sir, I believe that the side effects from this tour if it is allowed, will cost this country far more than people realise. Apart from the S2M in police costs, the losses through burglaries and smash-and-grab raids could be astronomical. The criminal element in our society will take advantage of police involvement with the

tour, and towns adjacent to the cities where matches are to be played will be very vulnerable, as probably half their underpoliced force will be transferred. We are told on television that a burglary or theft takes place every 24 minutes at present: it would be impossible to estimate what the figures would be while the Springboks are here. The game of rugby will suffer the biggest loss in the end. as I feel sure that many of their supporters like myself will dissociate themselves from the game. — Yours, etc., T. LUND. MARCH 25, 1981. Sir, — Millions of wretched black Africans have never heard of rugby — or New Zealand either. Forget the Springbok tour a moment. It’s • only a game. HART is angry because an Angus cattle breeder of South Africa attended a world conference in Christchurch. If it boosts trade, so what? Trade between black Africa and South Africa, currently booming, last year increased 52 per cent over the 1979 figure. Forty-seven of Africa’s 53 nations do business with South Africa. Would HART boycott this trade and starve black Africans? Have we not equal trading rights? Do we have to ask HART before we invite a South African, whatever colour, to be our guest here? Is this HART’s idea of freedom for us? Do we have to apologise to HART for having white skins? — Yours, etc., JOHN LESLIE. March 26, 1981.