Springbok tour

Press, 5 August 1981, Page 20

Springbok tour

Sir,—As another middle aged, middle-class demonstra tor who witnessed the police batons outside Parliament, 1 can verify the woman's ac count in Thursday's "Press." This horrifying sight of flailing batons and people staggering away with bloody heads was the result of police action which, in my view, had no justification, even before the batons were used. It was an orderly, peaceful anti-tour march similar, I would say. to the many others in which thousands of people throughout New Zealand have participated over the past months. Why, I ask myself, did the police act the way they did after so many other peaceful demonstrations? I should say it is a combinationof a number of factors including the cancellation of the game in Hamilton and police frustration at not being allowed to apply the tactics they have been trained in due to the commendable restraint shown in Hamilton by Commissioner Walton. Now we see a hardening of police attitudes. - Yours, etc.. T. SHANAHAN. Wellington. July 30. 1981.

Sir,—We rebut the statement perpetrated by the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, when in London, that the tour issue is now solely one of law and order, and that the protest movement is directed by the extreme Left. One memorable night, in Cathedral Square, we witnessed the fact that, among hundreds listening to Canon John Osmers, were many other senior citizens. Similar orderly protests occurred throughout New Zealand before the Springboks’ entry, with its predictably tragic consequences. We saw it, and still see it to be a moral decision to stop the tour, in support of our black South African brothers. “Now is the time to assert to their face that men are love,” but Cecil Day Lewis further warned “love’s no laughing matter,” “never so dangerous as when denied.” In a similar period of national demoralisation, Bishop Wulfstan exhorted the freedom-fighters: “Let him who will, believe."—Yours, etc., GWENDA LOVEGROVE. NORMAN LOVEGROVE. August 4, 1981.

Sir,—The answer to the question which Thomas McGillivray asks (August 4) is that when Mr Muldoon says that he is opposed to the political system of the Soviet Union, he is genuinely sincere, but his declared opposition to South Africa’s is of a purely oralverbal nature, not to be taken seriously. The facts set out by Mr McGillivray, the total ban on visas for Soviet citizens since January 1980, confirm the hypocrisy of the Muldoon Government’s grounds for its resolute refusal to withhold visas from the Springboks. Mr Muldoon upholds the freedom of New Zealanders who wish to associate with South Africa’s racist international rugby team; he denies the freedom of those New Zealanders who wish to associate with Soviet citizens of any category, including sportsmen.—Yours, etc..

M. CREEL. August 4. 1981.

Sir.—Difficult though it is to discern the point your correspondent A. J. Graham (August 4) is making, there is one assertion in his letter that cannot go unchallenged: that the question of visas for the Springboks is not an issue. Hansard and your correspond-

ence column demonstrate that it is one, if not the major issue. As recently as today Geoffrey Palmer is reported as saying that the Government should have stopped the tour. How else but by refusing visas? Mr Graham would appear to be at odds with the Labour Party on the point. I invite him to state whether or not he would support the refusal of visas. While he is at it, perhaps Cr Graham or any other spokesman for the Labour council would care to explain to ratepayers the implications and the amount of the undertaking as to damages which it would be necessary for the council to give should it decide to initiate a blatantly political application for an injunction to prevent the test in Christchurch.—Yours, etc.. K. J. JONES. August 4, 1981.

Sir,—ln “The Press" of August 1 the Archbishop of New Zealand issued a statement which is typical of the “holier-than-thou"' attitude towards the Government in South Africa. Surely a “bridgebuilding" stance as' evinced by Sir John Marshall some year's ago is more sensible? Who casts the first stone? Wasn't there a scandal recently about the World Council of Churches financing arms for insurgents? We are told that sportsmen are among the best ambassadors to send to another country. The whole world is mad except thee and me and we are a little bit sometimes. They should stay away, boycott the rugby, blit allow'those who want to, to yell their heads off.—Yours, etc..

G. W1 DUDMAN. August 3. 1981.

Sir,—The last months are showing very clearly that those who engage in non-violent direct action are not the creators of tension. We do. however. attract the tension because the inbuilt racism in New Zealand is being brought out in the open where it can be seen by all (the rest of the world) and stated for what it is: racism. Racism, as with other oppressions, must be exposed with all of the resultant anger, frustration, feelings of injustice, before it can be dealt

with. Blame cannot be placed on “other forces" or “agitators." The created tension is there because of white racism and because of the indifference and unwillingness to act justly that the conditioning of that white racism is doing to the Government, the rugby union, and many in our communities. I dissociate myself from letters under my family name and initials with a contrary viewpoint.—Yours, etc..

ALLAN K. MARRIOTT. August 4. 1981.

Sir,—Nero fiddled while Rome burned and the Christians bore three centuries of persecution. Messrs Muldoon and Company have fiddled. New Zealand burns within and without, and the police are given the unenviable job of being the Rugby Union's private army to keep “law and order.” Morality, principle, justice, love and peace are sacrificed on the altars of national security, individual rights (if your game is rugby) and political expediency. It seems to me we Kiwis have a lot to learn before we can claim to be worthy of “God’s own country."—Yours. etc.. The Rev. GEOFF GRAY. Whataroa. August 1. 1981.