Springbok tour

Press, 27 July 1981, Page 16

Springbok tour

Sir,—Wednesday, July 22, was advertised as New Zealand’s Day of Shame. Thanks to the efforts of the protest groups, Saturday July -25, 1981, actually became New Zealand’s Day of Shame. It was the day on which thousands of well-meaning New Zealanders joined with the subversive element in our country to demonstrate that anarchy is stronger than democracy. Protest is one thing; anarchy is another, God help us. — Yours, etc., GORDON E. SMITH, J. MARLENE SMITH. July 25, 1981.

Sir,—l have noticed that several readers are writing to express sentiments along the lines that they are dismayed by the civil disobedience of antitour demonstrators. They argue that breaking laws to prevent rugby matches results in a gross violation of their rights to enjoy their sport. I am convinced that if these same writers were in Rome 1900 years ago they would be equally dismayed had others broken' Roman laws and rescued the Christians from the lions. I applaud the actions of the anti-apartheid movement as they attempt to rescue oiir Azanian brothers from the Boers. — Yours, etc., R. G. RITCHIE. July 25, 1981. Sir,—On the subject of the tour, TV and the press showed pictures and gave reports issued by 300-400 protesters trying to disrupt the Springbok game on Wednesday. They showed the marchers, but noone showed the 15,000 men, women and children who went to the game and enjoyed it. It would seem that one must be protesting or vandalising property to get attention. How about giving the supporters a fair go?—Yours, etc., LINDA DAVIS. July 24, 1981. Sir,—Eleven years ago the UNESCO , Courier devoted an issue to the subject,'“Man and Violence.” With the rapidly increasing world population much of what it foretold is coming true. Television brings violence and intolerance right into our homes. As a Christian, in response to Our Lord’s command, I cannot be involved in violence, nor can I judge others on either side of the tour issue, but I can plead with all New Zealanders to respect the rights of their fellow men to play rugby, or any other game with teams of their choice. By protesting violently we are endangering the lives of other people, and adopting the measures used by totalitarian dictatorships, black, white, or coloured.—Yours, etc., G. M. ENSOR. Amberley, July 24, 1981.

Sir,— Protesting • groups must be responsible for property damage during demonstrations and liable for payment of any repair bills. To maintain that responsibility lies with the organisation being protested against is not a valid argument. To draw an analogy, go back to primary school days. Visualise the class bully trying to take a pencil from its small owner. The bully begins putting pressure on the pencil held firmly by its owner, saying, “If you don’t let go it will break and if it breaks it will be your fault.” A ploy in common use in Communist politics — Yours, etc., ■ A. DAVISON. July 24. 1981.