Springbok tour

Press, 3 August 1981, Page 16

Springbok tour

Sir.—Dr John McLeod’s letter (July 30) really disturbed me. I am not a “grubby little lout” involved in "nasty little events." I am 50, gentle, peaceful, middle-class and I enjoy family life. I have been involved in a caring profession all my life and am very concerned about our country. I would very much like Dr McLeod to contact me so that he can see that I hold absolutely opposite views to his about the tour yet am not an “anti-tour hooligan." Like most pro-tour and law and order writers he uses belligerent phrases and batoning rhetoric that reflect a “dis-ease” of spirit. What he is condemning in me is the naked violence he uses in his letter. The doctor should heal himself. — Yours, etc..

GEORGE SWEET. August 1. 1981.

Sir,—The Springbok tour has at last brought violence and horror, and not this time from the anti-tour people, but from. Mr Couch’s police force. Are we to witness another Blair Peach affair, for the sake of a game of football, or do we send the Springboks home. If the Springboks come to Christchurch, I will still go out to demonstrate, with no-one to protect me.—Yours, etc.. Mrs HANA M. CASEY. July 30, 1981.

Sir,—How can I register my disgust at the actions of a Government that has allowed such a shameful situation to erupt? If my courage does not fail, for the first time in my many years, I feel a moral duty to join the anti-tour protest march on Saturday. I am not “extreme left,” not “antigovernment,” do not belong to any organised group, just an ordinary distressed and very frightened citizen, who has a troubled conscience—Yours, etc..

Mrs E. ROBINSON. July 31. 1981.

Sir,—lt seems that anti-tour groups are under the impression that people who support the tour also support apartheid. These groups are under the illusion that the world is endowed with a set amount of “rights” — that to give the black South Africans the rights they deserve means New Zealanders must go without rights they have. The rugby team from South Africa was

selected on merit. That being the case and if that team is not accepted in New Zealand then what incentive is there for South Africa to change its policies any further? If it is logical to see support of the tour as support of apartheid, surely it is just as logical to assume anyone (churches included) who supports anti-tour groups, also supports protesters entering buildings illegally, throwing personal property out of windows, property destruction, and the denial of rights of New Zealanders to watch sport and travel on public roads.—Yours, etc.,

PETER GUNSTONE. Julv 31, 1981.

Sir,—So the tour has become a “law and order issue," according to the Government. In come troops to help batonwielding police deal with nonviolent protesters. But what sort of law will be upheld? Jesus Christ said: “How terrible for you, teachers of the law ... You neglect to obey the really important teachings oi the law. such as justice and mercy and honesty...’’ We know the Government’s idea of justice, when it puts New Zealand rugby fans’ enjoyment ahead of South Africans’ freedom; we know its idea oi honesty, when it makes every possible wriggle to avoid honouring the Gleneagles Agreement. Its ideas on mercy were revealed on Wednesday. This approach to law and order is all too reminiscent of San Salvador or South Korea. Shall we who openly oppose tne tour survive to help vote the Government out in November, or shall we all be in jail or the cemetery?—Yours, etc.,. ROBIN MITCHELL. July 29, 1981.

Sir,—l feel depressed and sickened by this whole issue and there are several things 1 do not understand. 1. The Government accepted the Gleneagles Agreement, stating it would do all in its power to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa. 2. Now it is stated by Mr Muldoon that the agreement is of no account. Because the Government failed to adhere to it, he pronounces it dead. 3. While breaking an international agreement, the Government says it is for “law and order” and is willing to use violent means to this end, but it seems to me that it is one law unto itself, and that it makes one law for the Rugby Union which thereby breaks the international agreement, and another law for those who keep the international agreement and are thereby prohibited from trying to stop the tour. Notice that the police do not stop rugby supporters from watching the tour, but they do stop protesters from trying to get the tour stopped.—Yours, etc..

MARIANNE THORPE. July 31, 1981.

Sir.—The Government has. on many occasions, stated that it is its policy not to support apartheid in South Africa and not to support sporting contacts with South Africa. The

anti-tour protesters say the same. Therefore, the country is torn apart by protesters protesting in favour of Government policy. We even have the unique situation of having people go on hunger strikes in favour and support of Government policy. Yet, at the same time, the Government commits over $2 million to the police to preserve anti-Government policy. This would be funny if it wasn’t destroying the honour of a nation. Is this all being done for votes? — Yours, etc., CHARLES DRACE. July 31, 1981.

Sir—lf New Zealand is still officially a party to the Gleneagles Agreement am I not right in thinking that the antitour movement must be the conscience of the nation; it has certainly done more to uphold the terms of the agreement than our defaulting Government. — Yours, etc.,

GRAHAM FRENCH. Julv 31, 1981.

Sir,—Your edition of July 28 reports Mr Muldoon as stating in London that the Commissioner of Police. Mr R. J. Walton, did not have the power to tell the Rugby Union the Springbok tour should be called off. He could require only a particular match to be called off; he did not have the power in law to say to the Rugby Union: this tour must stop. Now. in your edition of April 27 last. Mr Couch, as Minister of Police is reported as telling a meeting in Dunedin that the Government would not interfere if the Commissioner cancelled the tour because of public behaviour. If the protesters created a shindig, it would be up to the Commissioner whether the tour went on. The decision would be left to the Commissioner and the politicians would play no part. By law the Commissioner would be able to exercise his judgment on whether the tour would go on. It seems the Prime Minister and his Minister of Police have different views. — Yours, etc.. N. A. ERIKSON. July 31. 1981.

Sir.—Yes. we feel that July 22 is a day of shame. New Zealand's shame. Why? Because many of the schoolteachers were present at the march here in Christchurch taking with them pupils from class with parents’ permission while others went home for the rest of the day. We just wonder what Mr Tobias thinks of us all, as we are acting as if he does not even exist. He came over to New Zealand with his teams representing his country, plaved an excellent game at Gisborne and still the people of New Zealand are acting as if he wasn’t even on the team. We. the undersigned, have always been proud to be New Zealanders but after the display of rudeness to both Mr Tobias and the others in the South African team we are starting to wonder just what it is we have to be proud of. — Yours, etc..

A. J. OLSON. J. I. FOWLER. A. MARRIOTT Julv 30. 1981.