Springbok tour

Press, 9 April 1981, Page 18

Springbok tour

Sir,—ln a sombre world, we must thank the South African Non-Racial Olympic Comriiittee for supplying a little light relief. Not satisfied with boycotting Boycott, SANROC has added more sportsmen, including Lester Piggot to its “infamous” black-list which already bears the names of sev- < eral prominent and respected New Zealanders. Not content with black-listing ’ those with contacts with South Africa, SANROC also wants to blacklist those who have contact with those on the black-list. Only the most militant trade unionist would understand such peculiar reasoning. Carried to its “logical” conclusion, everyone would end up on the blacklist except SANROC and those who have been granted a special dispensation. No white South African could dream up such a diabolical form of discrimination. The hell of it is that our anti-tourists look to SANROC for advice and guidance.—Yours, etc., G.M. EDMONDS. April 7, 1981. Sir,—So the Rugby Union is not prepared to discuss the Springbok tour at Mairehau High School because an antitour speaker will be present. Having long suspected the motives of the Rugby Union over this issue I am not surprised by their unwillingness to expose themselves to public scrutiny. I wish them no solace in their self-imposed isolation as they bleat on about keeping politics out of sport. New Zealanders are a fairminded and sports-loving nation. We will have an opportunity on May 1 to show the Rugby Union that there are some games we are not prepared to play.—Yours, etc., ROGER JAMES. April 8, 1981. Sir,—Could Mrs Sutherland of S.P.I.R. advise what relationship her organisation has

with an organisation established for some years in Auckland and having the same name and established primarily to counteract other groups pushing their restricted views on what adults could read. If it is related I would have thought people here on mailing lists would have been invited to join this new group. All the aims of S.P.I.R. seem to be exactly what so many people are asking for the majority of South Africans. Mrs Sutherland feels the police will cope, but is controlling protests what they are paid for? Last year when the Royal Kents were in Wellington a short epidemic, of major crime found the Wellington police very restricted with available manpower and we can expect more violent crime with increasing unemployment and drug-trafficking. The Government must act now responsibly and refuse visas to South Africans. They did.it to a then society prostitute from England and surely representatives of apartheid — “a crime against humanity” — are more dangerous to New Zealanders than one prostitute.—Yours, etc., - . M. O’NEILL. March 13, 1981.- r

[Mrs E. Sutherland, secretary, Society for the Protection of Individual Rights, replies: “The Society for the Protection of Individual Rights in New Zealand is a new organisation unrelated to any. existing group. Mr O’Neill’s concern for law and order is commendable. We suggest, however, that he voice his concern to the antiapartheid movement rather than to us. If they would undertake to respect the law, to respect the rights of others, not to interfere with private property, and to allow people peacefully to pursue the recreation of their choice, such extra police will not be needed during the Springbok tour. The Government has pledged it will not refuse visas to the Springbok team. We accept this pledge and support its position which is to comply with the Gleneagles Agreement but not to infringe the human rights of New Zealanders by denying them freedom of association.”]