Springbok tour

Press, 2 June 1981, Page 20

Springbok tour

Sir,—lmagine the headlines for Government statements if roles were reversed, and HART, not the rugby union, dictated New Zealand foreign policy. No pussy-footing then. “HART holds country to ransom.” “Government intervenes.” “Dissidents rounded up.” “No minority group can force policies damaging our country.” The rugby union does just that. The Government’s hands, iron to prevent the Moscow Olympics, are miraculously flabby now, wringing over the sad plight of the downtrodden majority of South Africans, while it discredits all who oppose rugby foreign policy. Indeed, the rugby union is subsidised by $2,500,000 to damage New Zealand’s reputation. It has never helped the oppressed. Corso, which has helped, first had government financial support withdrawn, and now has a public berating for using freedom of speech to get the Government to face the reality of poverty and oppression. In a black South African’s shoes, how would we feel and act? Try reversing our role.— Yours, etc., B. ROBERTS. May 29, 1981.

Sir,—The last Heylen poll on the tour is not a true assessment of support for or against the tour, and is suspect. In the first instance schoolchildren aged 15 and upwards took part in the poll; second, it could have been the case that the districts polled were known as strong Labour strongholds which would mostly follow the Labour Party lead of opposing the tour, as for example, the

choice of Christchurch’as one area to poll. Third, the heavy propaganda which had issued from the news media over a long period, emphasising the violence that could ensue if the tour was permitted, no doubt influenced the timid elderly people to oppose the tour. New Zealand sportsmen should stand firm and support the tour. They should not be dictated to by a group of black African conspirators, living on finance supplied by the “disunited nations,” to which, unfortunately, our Government contributes.—Yours, etc., R. V. SHAW. May 29, 1981.

Sir,—The church and HART can go to Hell; bring on the Springboks! That’s my motto! I hope and pray that the Springbok tour will so outrage the black “Commonwealth” that they will expel New Zealand. When the British “Empire” was disbanded and the component parts of it were given “independence” our misguided politicians formed ( the British (?) “Commonwealth of Nations” all "independent” but still maintained by the purse of the British taxpayer. At every subsequent meeting of the “Commonwealth” Heads of State, the former colonies (or dependencies) have, by majority vote, wagged the dog. Hence such monstrosities as the “Gleaneagles Agreement” regarded in some quarters as if it had been handed down by Moses from Mount Sinai.—Yours, etc.,

D. McMAHON. May 28, 1981.

Sir,—Should the Springboks be allowed to tour New Zealand or not is an argument which will continue for many years. I am not a supporter of apartheid as practised in South Africa, or any other country for that matter, but I also dislike “blackmail,” and people who openly threaten to take the law into their own hands. The threats to boycott the Brisbane Games leave m6' cold. If these people were sincere the boycott would already be in force. Ireland is at present touring South Africa. A South African schools cricket team has just returned from England and a South African team is now off to South America. It has also been suggested that the Government should withhold visas to the South African side. This would certainly get my support provided the same applied to all people, or organisations, i.e. trade union offp cials, politicians, church leaders, or sports teams visiting or entertaining countries that practise political, religious or racial discrimination.—Yours, etc.,

G. D. COOK. May 29, 1981.