Springbok tour

Press, 4 August 1981, Page 16

Springbok tour

Sir,—Emotions flare in any rally of opposing groups of thought. Despite our ideals, violence is inevitable. It is indeed a time of shame; we have lost all sense of proportion and dignity by shouuting and fighting like street hoodlums. We have overlooked all the rules of hospitality and etiquette to visitors to our country. None approve of apartheid: the decisions of both Rugby Union and Government leave much to be desired; the attempts to give rights and freedoms to one faction repudiate the rights and freedoms of another. It is a difficult longterm issue. Our small nation, in trying to take responsibility for the whole world's actions, is adding to its own problems. Constructive action would be to set our own “house” in order and continue to speak out and set an example wherever we may be. Expectations of a peaceful march with opposing aggressive factions are unrealistic. — Yours, etc., W. MARGARET

DENNIS. July 31. 1981

Sir,—Perhaps I am being a bit dense — but will somebody please explain to me just what bridges are being built by the current sporting contacts with South Africa? — Yours, etc.. J. W. TAYLOR. July 30. 1981.

Sir,—As a Catholic I am astounded by the statement in your paper (July 29) by Archbishop Williams — in particular his saying that “in no wayare we responsible for the violence that has arisen.” The Catholic Bishops have actively supported HART and M.O.S.T. and have given them every encouragement including financial assistance. It must have been obvious to them, as it was obvious to many other people, that HART and M.O.S.T. were made up of professional agitators. They have been responsible for the invasion of the National Party headquarters'in Wellington and throwing papers out the windows; did Archbishop Williams condemn this? They were responsible for terrorising the nuns at the convent at Gisborne,, demanding accommodation, having been refused accommodation at the presbytery; did Archbishop Williams condemn this? Known HART members were

involved in both of these incidents as were known HART members involved in the wrecking of the fences, in Gisborne and Hamilton: did Archbishop Williams condemn this? — Yours, etc.. G. E. BRADY. Taihape. Julv 30, 1981.

Sir.—Has K. J. Jones (August 1) changed his stance on the Springbok tour? The irrelevancies he descends to add nothing to the debate. He forgets that both the majority and minority, in a democracy, have rights. If we elect a government to rule surely we have the expectation of responsible government? It was the Government’s right and responsibility to prevent this situation which is causing such divisiveness. It is also clear that Mr Jones has a fixation about visas which have never been an issue and are certainly unrelated to the present situation. And how is his argument strengthened by an unnecessary snipe at the clergy, who have been totally consistent in their opposition to the tour on moral grounds? Finally, his assumption that there is a mandate for the tour to continue is nonsense. - Yours, etc..

A. J. GRAHAM August 2. 1981.

Sir,—As a former New Zealander I am concerned to see New Zealand allowing itself to be torn apart over the Springbok tour. All the fuss seems to be negated by some facts I have just checked with the South African Consulate in Sydney: (a) Forty-nine of the 52 nations in Africa trade with South Africa, (b) Last year sports teams from both France and England visited South Africa to play, with no resultant boycott from other nations of the world, (c) Even Mr Mugabe has said that to stop trading with South Africa would harm his nation's economy. Having regard to these facts one asks why only New Zealand has been and is being used as the crucible for the publicity over apartheid; because it is small, distant and without economic clout? —

Yours, etc., MARGARET COULTER, Sydney. July 29, 1981.

Sir.—Your correspondent. V. F. Wilkinson (August 1) alludes to the similarity between the Nazi boast of "law and order.” which mantled repressive evil. We wondered at that time how it could be happening. Last week our Prime Minister’s stand-in threatened that citizens would be “clobbered." More sinister was the news that German Shepherd dogs would be a part of the "teach-them-a-lesson” strategy. New Zealanders are upset at having unwelcome trespassers thrust into their home territory, and are not permitted to “close their door.” How 'are they supposed to react to a painful affront? And w’ho decrees that “law and order” should become an elitist concept, siphoned off by hard-headed political groups, casting about desperately for a virtuous-sounding snap election? “Law and order” must not be debased for fleeting convenience. — Yours, etc., LORNA ANKER. August 1. 1981. ’

Sir.—A visitor to New Zealand could be forgiven for believing a sizeable proportion of its inhabitants had not escaped mental adolescence. Ami-tour elements would be wise to remember that they have no authority to damage property. irrespective of ownership, illegally enter buildings, block roads without permits, or forcibly enter rugby grounds and stop games. Nor have they any right to assault police or to assume that their views are the views of anyone else and they have the support of the majority for their actions. In turn, rugby supporters have no right to assault anti-tour protesters, use foul language in public places, throw missiles, or assume a “viligante” role. Retired police officers are exhorted to remember that is exactly what they are. One can assume serving members can cope with a most distasteful duty. Press statements by police should only be made by

officers specifically authorised to do so. and kept to a necessary minimum. — Yours, etc.. B. I. TAIT. Dunsandel, Julv 31. 1981.

Sir.—Mr Muldoon's heroic pose as champion of the right of the ordinary bloke to watch rugby regardless of the origin of the visiting team, while it may gain votes for the Nats, is causing near civil war in this country. Players and spectators are now protected by barbed wire entanglements. Police, who claim to be impartial but were seen at Palmerston North to indulge in a Maori war dance directed at peaceful protesters, are armoured and carry and have used lethal long truncheons. Thugs from the pro-tour side are itching to attack the protesters. Mr Muldoon says he intends to make trouble in the Commonwealth. The minor freedom he and his yes-men arc upholding is trivial compared to the tragic cost. The Government should have governed in the first place by preventing the tour, the sad consequences of which were predictable. — Yours, etc..

H. G. ROYDS. August 1. 1981.

Sir.—Recently in London Mr Muldoon stated that he is not against the ordinary and individual South African or Russian citizen, but that he is opposed to the systems of their countries. For this reason he said he is not prepared to deny visas to people such as these young South African sportsmen who are only here to play sport. I am still anxious to hear a satisfactory answer as to why the Muldoon regime banned visas from scientific, educational and cultural groups from the Soviet Union in 1980. The answer to this question is also one that lan Fraser fruitlessly tried so hard to extract from Ben Couch on the television Newsmakers programme. Maybe one of our readers can come up with a better answer than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. —

Yours, etc.. THOMAS MCGILLIVRAY. August 1, 1981.

Sir,—Our country is in an appalling moral and spiritual condition when a spokesman for the Methodist Church, and indeed representative of our church leaders in New Zealand, publicly stated that Christians could break the law to protest against apartheid and the Springbok tour. How can such men hold office in the Church of Jesus Christ when advocating vandalism, lawlessness and deliberate trespass on the rugby field? The calling of a minister is to preach the pure word of God with charity and power, to rebuke and expose sin and to lead his people into the green pastures of the truth. I John 4:1 tells us: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." — Yours, etc., CRAIG A. KENNEDY.

July 30. 1981. Sir,—There is no pleasing everybody. The pseudo high moral tone of your correspondent, John McLeod, is indicative of the elitist thinking which categorises humans into restricted hide-bound compartments. Why should caring citizens anywhere in the world have to apologise for objecting to an unwelcome disruptive invasion of their hard-won freedom to extend their hospitality to those whom they choose? — Yours, etc.. B. CRESSWELL. August 2, 1981.