Springbok tour

Press, 23 June 1981, Page 16

Springbok tour

Sir,—P. J. Seward's letter (June 20) is impertinent in claiming that I have "no concern for individual rights.” It is those very rights for people everywhere (including black South Africans) I am fighting for. He also clearly does not kndw the difference" between a right and a privilege. According to Hohfeld’s definition (see Lloyd's Introduction to Jurisprudence 2nd edition page 174) a “right” is that for which there is a correlative duty, while "privilege” and “duty” are jural oppdsites. The invitation to the Springboks by the N.Z.R.F.U.- does not impose a duty upon the Government to issue visas. It has a discretion to decline, and often has in other instances. The N.Z.R.F.U, therefore has no right to require visas issued. The Government has however chosen to issue visas as a privilege to these particular foreigners to visit this country. In so doing it approves the tour and the evil of apartheid.—Yours, etc., D. J. O'ROURKE. June 20, 1981.

Sir,—Marilyn Waring says itall for me. Her summation of the Springbok situation is spot on. It is no longer just a game of rugby. Bridge-building has now become bridge demolition. If the Springboks tour, South Africa could well become the only country Which will want to. I agree with Miss Waring, when she says “the price that the Rugby Union asks of New Zealanders is intolerable.” I only hope that if the tour goes ahead, spectators will be at a minimum and the Rugby Union will lose a great deal of money. Perhaps insolvency will cure its insularity. — Yours, etc. B. WILSON. June 20, 1981.

Sir,—The recently published terms of the Gleneagles Agreement establish the correctness of the Government stand on the question of visas. On the other hand, the Rugby Union has consistently. maintained against all' reason the quite untenable view that its right to invite the Springboks carries with it no responsibility whatsoever for the repercussions to the rest of the country. Rights, by their very mature, always involve responsibility. The Rugby Union must face up to its responsibility to New Zealand (let alone the millions suffering under apartheid) and sacrifice this tour in the true spirit of sportsmanship thus bringing honour to themselves and their country in place of the present shame. — Yours etc.,

ALAN COBURN, Nelson. June 21, 1981.

Sir,—The attack on Marilyn Waring by someone claiming to be a defender of individual rights is a splendid example of irrationality. Surely the incon-

gruity and arrogance of proclaiming your own .unfettered right to do whatever you want while demanding that others unquestioningly conform, to a group position is the height of conceit. Miss Waring's integrity, intelligence and courage stand in direct contrast to the blinkered vision of selfish people ignoring responsibilities. - Yours, etc.. G. B. TULLOCH. June 20, 1981.

Sir,—The statement in your newspaper by the chairman of Coalition Against the Tour, Mrs Mary Baker, that “the basic human rights of black South Africans which are grossly infringed by apartheid policies are much more important than the property rights of any New Zealand individual or group” reveals more clearly the misguided dishonest intentions of this group. Are not property rights of ownership and protection a basic right of New Zealanders? Should we give up this basic right'along with our other basic rights, freedom of association, etc., because a group such as CAT or HART, which tries to destroy freedom in the name of freedom, rattles its sword? In the name of real freedom, let the tour proceed.—Yours, etc., L. R. POOLE. June 18, 1981.

Sir,—Doug Brown (June 20) has the same confused ideas as Ben Couch regarding South Africa. Both say they do not support apartheid (both fail to say why) and almost in the same breath say they support “separate development” as practised in South Africa. Apartheid and South Africa's brand of “separate development” are one and the same. Doug Brown wants the Springboks to tour in order to prevent black Africa from engaging in “bloody revolt,” against South Africa. Obviously, if Africa wanted ’ “bloody revolt” it would have happened many years ago. Instead, showing incredible patience and fortitude, Africa has opted for the diplomatic and persuasive battle — the battle of sports and trade boycotts, rather than the battle of armed conflict. If Doug Brown were to open his eyes he would realise that "another Vietnam protest” has been going on right under his nose only this time a black hand has been holding the banner.—Yours, etc., GRAEME YARDLEY. June 20, 1981.

Sir,—The Springbok tour seems to have brought the hypocrite to the fore. Black African countries treat us as a hostile nation, but still take financial aid from us. They all trade with South Africa, but this they conveniently forget. Miss Waring sheds tears in Parliament over a game of rugby, but is unaffected by the plight of fellow-countrymen. Massive unemployment, dwindling facilities for sick and aged, the shrinking dollar and rising costs should be causing her more concern. The Labour Party's professed concern is understandable. It is a sideissue and the longer the party can keep it going in election year the better, and they hope to catch the protester's vote.— Yours, etc., J. C. KING. June 21, 1981.