Springbok tour

Press, 31 March 1981, Page 16

Springbok tour

Sir,—l have read with interest Frank Freeman’s letters. Obviously Right-wing politically, he is a staunch supporter of the National parties both here and in South Africa. However, of late, he appears to have abandoned Mr Muldoon since the Prime Minister came out against the Springbok tour. Now he shows himself as an ardent admirer of Ben Couch. So much for Mr Freeman’s political maturity—Yours, etc.. B: COTTRILL. March 29, 1981.

Sir,—ln the recent Radio Avon “talk-back” show with Ron Don, he frequently labelled any anti-tour group as communist. Two organisations he mentioned as being communist inspired were the World Council of Churches and one other affiliated ■ to' the Roman Catholic Church. If Mr Don had in mind even the loosest definition of communism, he would know that communism is antiChrist, therefore it cannot follow that such organisations would encompass a philosophy fundamentally so opposed to them. It would seem that what Mr Don really means when he refers to communism is anyone opposed to the tour. During the McCarthy era. a similarly wide definition was used to lock up anyone deviating in the slightest degree from the status quo. When one combines some of Mr Don’s statements .with the anti-union atmosphere of the recent Auckland march one wonders how far New Zealand is from seeking out “Reds under the Beds.”—Yours, etc., P. D. WATTS. . March 27, 1981.

Sir,—lt seems ironic that militant groups: such as HART are trying to stop the Springboks coming when this country is still trading with South Africa. It will be more effective to halt all trade with South Africa to help to bring a different system to that country with help from other countries. A trade ban will do more harm to their economy than trying to stop their sportsmen competing in other countries. A possible solution on this issue is to hold a referendum throughout the country instead of HART assuming that the majority in the country are against the tour. I personally will make up my own mind whether I’ll go along to watch a game of rugby and not be told who shall I watch by HART or anyone else.—Yours, etc., M. J. WILTON. . March 29, 1981.

Sir,—The silliest pro-tour (and pro-apartheid) argument of them all is again repeated by Newton Trembath (“The Press,” March 30). In essence it runs like this; “Majority rule in South Africa would jeopardise a vital sea lane and our strategic interests” and, of course, the wicked communist bogey is again raised — the same ludicrous argument that failed dismally to deter the majority voting overwhelmingly for Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia). By a stretch of the imagination the Government of Ethiopia could, perhaps, be termed “communist.” Newton Trembath should name just one other “communist” Black African Government.—Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. •March 30, 1981.