Springbok tour

Press, 6 June 1981, Page 14

Springbok tour

Sir. -A controversy about sports in politics was inevitable when the Rugby Union mindlessly invited the Springboks in election year; after all, two others were available. These officials gave the Prime Minister an extra lever to get our minds off unemployment and other symptoms of a sick society. With two Royal tours and a Telethon he already had diversions to hinder our probing into more serious problems. If he keeps his present stance, he looks like the strong leader promoted by the National Party. If he finds he must call the tour off. he can announce it from Paris or elsewhere as he has been known to make his pronouncements in the past. That will help silence those who say he is a dictator. He can thank the Rugby Union for a handy dou-ble-headed coin. Best of all he will not be here to take the flak. The Rugby Union brought this controversy on its own head and deserves no sympathy. — Yours, etc., ‘ A. M. COATES. June 4, 1981.

Sir,— l find your editorial, "Suspicion falls on HART ’ totally unacceptable. It is not HART but HART’S judgment that vou suspect — a very different matter especially when an emotive term such as “suspicion” is used. Second. HARTs judgment is certainly no more under suspicion than that of the Race Relations Conciliator on such a sensitive issue at such a sensitive time as the guest of a South African commercial organisation. He might just as well have gone as the guest of the South African Government or Rugby Union as far as seeing the real situation of black people in general is concerned. Third, on top of all this, you would have HART compromise itself and its .views by keeping silent when some things that should be said might put off some people who might otherwise oppose the tour. — Yours, etc., G. C. SUGGATE. Jun'e 4, 1981. Sir,—S.P.l.R.’s distress at harassment ("The Press,” Wednesday, June 3), before a forthcoming pro-tour activity, hardly arouses sympathy. Public harassment and obscene phone calls are common phenomena to all protest groups. HART has been confronted with such behaviour for many

years. Accusing “anti-tour campaigners" of this type of harassment is petty-politics, indicative of a small mind. — Yours, etc., DEBBIE HINDIN. June 3. 1981. Sir.-The pro-tour agitators in S.P.I.R. are moaning about being harassed but such plaintive cries have a hollow’ ring. S.P.I.R. was originally called anti-HART and that name exposes its aim which was to attack and harass people associated with the anti-racist tour movement. W. Mortlock. S.P.I.R.s so-called rugby liaison officer, was reported ("The Press." March 20) as saying: "If HART gets 2000 people on May 1 surely the rugby fraternity can match that. This will be a make or break day for HART and we could mess up their plans with a counter-march of greater numbers.” S.P.I.R.’s negative aim to mess up HART's praiseworthy efforts to mobilise people against the racist policies of the South African dictatorship failed miserably. The aggressive chanting of a tiny group of misguided Springbok tour supporters did not impress the 10,000 people who rallied against racism in Cathedral Square On May 1. — Yours, etc., ANTHONY BROWN. June 3, 1981