Springbok tour

Press, 24 June 1981, Page 20

Springbok tour

Sir,—During a TV item some weeks ago featuring Mr Blazey the implication came through that without the Springbok tour coming to fruition the union finances would be in dire straits by 1982. Their dogmatic stand, therefore, is not really one of principle but for dollars if they are to survive. The Government too is in the act and has shown itself to be willing to sacrifice all other sports and the reputation of New Zealand in general in its pigheaded and desperate bid to gain votes from the rugby fraternity in November. I suggest the media - take note of the appeal by Miss Waring, end this farce and print some real news of substance to weary readers.— Yours, etc., C. KENNEDY. June 20, 1981. Sir,—Forgetting entirely the political overtones, I guess a lot of us would like to see last Saturday’s All Black test team play the Springboks, generally regarded as New Zealand’s most formidable opponents in rugby.—Yours, etc., F. A. BULL, (Sen.) Sheffield. June 20, 1981. Sir,—Before Parliament's vote on the tour, Mr Blazey said that the outcome would not change the union’s decision. Of significance, he said "it would just be another political thing.” Does Mr Blazey really understand what Parliament is? His reply offends my understanding of it. Governments, parties and policies are political things but Parliament is essentially a constitutional thing. Parliament is not Government. When it speaks as Parliament, if it is, then, not the democratic: voice of the people, then what is. it? Sadly, our M.P.s, in fact, chose to det politically in. the House on the tour vote arid thus, in effect, only achieved an inevitable expression of Government policy. But this does not excuse Mr Blazey’s public disregard for the will of Parliament should it ever be known. His attitude is fundamentally and seriously undemocratic and yet the Rugby Union is claiming the exercise of democratic rights. I will drop Mr Blazey a line.—Yours, etc., K. CAMPBELL. June 21, 1981.

Sir,—There’s something wrong with people’s thinking. In “The Press” of June 19, Mr Samu Zulu is reported as saying that ”if the New Zealand Government insisted on bringing the Springboks . . .” The New Zealand Government is not insisting. It is such muddled thinking which exacerbates the issue.—Yours, etc., G. W. DUDMAN. June 21, 1981.

Sir,—ln the continuing battle over the Springbok tour, there is one issue that is far more vital than any series of rugby matches or any sports meetings or meetings of Commonwealth ministers that might be held in Brisbane or Auckland or anywhere else. That is the freedom of all New Zealanders to do what they wish to do within the law. The leaders of the black African countries cannot understand why the New Zealand Government cannot refuse visas to the Springboks. Of course they cannot understand. There is not one democracy among them and their people do not know what freedom means. But we know. We have inherited our freedom and men and women have died to.preserve it. It is the most precious thing we own and we must guard it against any attempt to erode it. The N.Z. Rugby Union had every right to invite the Springboks to tour New Zealand. The attempt at blackmail now being made by the African countries is selective and evil.—Yours, etc. ANNE .THOMSON. June 22, 1981.

Sir,—Some people who support the Springbok tour do so out of a concern for the freedom of New Zealanders. No individuals or countries have absolute freedom to do whatever they fancy. Where -the citizens of a country have great freedom, great responsibility is needed to use the freedom wisely. New Zealanders have great; freedom, and unless we show great responsibility in using it, it will be restricted for us. ; Those who see’our freedom to play rugby

with the Springboks as impinging on their freedom to win basic human rights for nonwhite South Africans will refuse to associate with us.— Yours, etc. JOAN LARSEN.

June 22, 1981. Sir,—As demonstrated repeatedly, Mr Muldoon and his pundits have that extraordinary gift which allows them to argue with conviction that: black in fact can be white if the purpose suits. Mortals like HART., lan Fraser, David Lange and “your average bloke” should now cease to be alarmed at this rationale and accept gracefully, as no doubt the Rugby Union will, any ensuing wrath that may befall New Zealand from "blackmailing” countries whose only reasonable lever for change in South Africa is the boycotting of sports and Commonwealth events. My thanks for timely republishing the Gleneagles Agreement — perhaps you should send a copy to the Prime Minister.—Yours, etc., B. HALL. June 22, 1981.