Springbok tour

Press, 29 June 1981, Page 16

Springbok tour

Sir,—V. F. Wilkinson, who seems to think he has a right to lay down the law, says that “those who support the tour should clearly state if they want the Gleneagles Agreement torn up or more rigidly enforced in the future.” All right, I think it should be torn up. I think it should never have been signed and it certainly should never have been signed at Gleneagles. Gleneagles is an honourable name, in Scottish history and the name of a fiirstclass golf course. It should have been left like that and not associated with a bit of dirty politics, which has already done far more harm than good. If an agreement of this kind had to be signed, it should have been signed at Lusaka or some place like that, more in keeping with its nature than Gleneagles could ever be. — Yours, etc. ANNE THOMSON. June 27, 1981. Sir,—Mr Taiboys asks us to look carefully at Gleneagles. (1) Il affirmed, “apartheid in sports as in other fields is an abomination.” By members

agreeing (2) “vigorously to combat” and (3) "take every practical step to discourage contact” (4) “in accordance with its laws,” and (5) “effec-tive”-ly, there were (6) “unlikely to be future sporting contacts of any significance.” Look at (1) A Cabinet Minister approved apartheid. (2) (3) The vigorous Olympic dissuasion, at America’s behest, was Olympian by tour comparison; yet Russia’s Afghanistan invasion is overshadowed by South Africa’s Namibian occupation. Mr Muldoon’s publicly-ex-pressed tour opposition came very late. (4) Today Russians are denied visas; previously visas were refused to Taiwanese, Koreans, Russians, etc. (6) Other sporting contacts reported lack the enormous “significance” of a Springbok tour. Legally and morally the Government has fallen short, and has no mandate to lead us from the Commonwealth into America's arms.—Yours, etc., B. ROBERTS. June 26, 1981.

Sir,—Obviously Mr Muldoon and the National Party want the tour, for, besides promising visas, they refuse to make a direct request to the Rugby Union to play fair. Only Mr Taiboys, on the way out anyway, is allowed to support Gleneagles honestly, except when he votes. Hiwi Tauroa would see much good in South Africa, but the excuse that white domination cannot end “overnight” wears thin after decades of doing nothing. In 1943, Durban had the most rigid colour bar, yet its city council housing man was dedicated in replacing biscuit-tin hovels with "sub-economic” homes. In some Cape communities, Coloureds were served in the same bars as whites, unlike Te Puke at that time. A Maori with our R.A.F. squadron was welcome everywhere, but we got sick of: “You’re lucky your natives aren’t like ours man.” How could they know? — Yours, etc..

VARIAN J. ttWILSON June 25, 1981.

Sir,—Frustration is being expressed by many people besides me about the singling out of New Zealand as having continuing ■ sporting contacts with South Africa. Mr Ramphal, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, said on TV that the Springbok tour was the most significant sporting contact with South Africa in the last five years. What annoys me is that why are we the most significant? Why should we be singled out as being the most important when at least 30 countries have had sporting links with South Africa? These other contacts are seemingly put aside and ignored. I think Mr Muldoon's latest move about the Gleneagles Agreement is justified. Why should we have a political meeting taken away from us and not Britain (Lions to S.A., 1980) or the United States (proposed Springbok tour)? I say we should not be pressured. — Yours, etc., G. M. PURDON. June 25, 1981.

Sir,—l wonder how many pro-tour supporters, who having seen Mr Tauroa interviewed on television, saw the tour in a different light. I did. I feel the way he expressed his feelings on what he had seen personally, clarified a matter which has been confusing, emotional and/or biased hearsay

from the arguments on either side. I sympathise with the Government as their policy on not interfering in sport ties their hands. I still sympathise with our country for being "singled out” when many other countries have sporting contacts with South Africa. I was indignant about our country being told who they should associate with, but my freedom will not be threatened by a cancellation of the tour. Some blacks’ chances to have freedom may be enhanced. The gentlemanly, rational interview was a bright light in a dim, drawn-out issue. What a pity it could not have been made months ago. — Yours, etc., H. GILES.

Saltwater Creek, June 25. 1981.