Springbok tour

Press, 7 August 1981, Page 12

Springbok tour

Sir,—l had to sit down and write to you about the absolutely disgusting affair at the rugby match today. We were up at 4 a.m. and watched a minority of protesters with banners, while a large majority shouted: “We want rugby.” I always thought New Zealanders were civilised. From reports in the Christchurch papers, sent to me by a friend there is a lot of bad feeling against South Africa. I never realised it was so fanatic. People in New Zealand will be blamed all over the world for such hobo activities. The Third World countries will undoubtedly applaud. But why take it out on the Springboks? They are not the Government. I suppose if a rugby team from a black African State went to visit New Zealand, you would welcome them with open arms. You would not blame them if their Head of State had thou : sands of his people killed for no better reason than that they did not like his Government. — Yours, etc., TRUDY METTER. Port Elizabeth, South Africa. July 25. 1981.

Sir,—Anti-apartheid protest has been thwarted by our helplessness against the determination of the National Party to exploit the situation for political profit, as pointed out by Father Geoff Gray. The gentle protesters were tricked by a clever plan into believing there was a victory at Hamilton. Before the match, television showed police inspecting the weak fences, and it must be obvious that the demonstrators were actually herded in at the point planned. Had they met a body of rugby supporters there would have been bloodshed, but they got in under protection to play their orchestrated farce. Another farce was the televised cancellation of a National Party session when there was no real threat. Mr Muldoon never asked straight out'for the tour to be cancelled because he needed the Springboks here and wanted the confident we all believe in the tooth fairy.—Yours, etc..

VARIAN J. WILSON. August 5, 1981.

Sir,—Despite the flood of anti-tour letters in both local newspapers my firm impression everywhere I go is that the silent majority who really count find HART’s leaders abhorrent and their tactics despicable. Admittedly they have gained support from sincere citizens and churchmen by campaigning against apartheid. Aided by'the media, they have succeeded in creating dissension and- violence between anti and pro-tour groups, thereby incurring $2 million expenses. Yet they have the effrontery to blame this on the Prime Minister and the Rugby Union. They claim the right, to protest, to obstruct and to damage; yet they strive to deny us our lawful right to make our own moral decisions. They subject peaceful citizens to extreme provocation and break laws, but claim police protection.— Yours, etc.,

E. MULCOCK August 5, 1981.

Sir,—One demonstrates, one expects heckling. Nevertheless, it came as a shock to hear large groups of Christ’s College pupils chant pro-tour slogans as anti-apartheid demonstrators marched past the school on Saturday afternoon. The churches have aligned them-

selves with the struggle for justice in South Africa, and numerous Christians have taken to the streets to express their support for this struggle. It is therefore very disappointing to find pupils of a church school ridiculing this effort and abusing demonstrators. The pupils were saying, in effect, that they valued rugby more highly than Christian principles. their country, and the Commonwealth—Yours, etc.. J. NGARIMU. August 2. 1981.

Sir.—K. J. Jones (August 5) yet again demonstrates his intent to make an issue out of a non-issue, the withdrawing of visas. This is not the current debate. He is correct, however, when he states that Geoffrey Palmer said that the Government should have stopped the tour. He is,. however, totally wrong in this instance that the refusing of visas was the means. The controversy would not be with us now if Mr Jones’s Government had simply said to the Rugby Union: “Stop the tour.” I agree with Mr Palmer, the tour, in the best interests of New Zealand, should have been stopped by such direct action from the Government. As to the proposed council injunction to prevent the test match in Christchurch. Mr Jones can be assured that such an action would only be taken after full council debate with the support of a legal opinion. A responsible approach open to the present Government. — Yours, etc..

A. J. GRAHAM August 5, 1981.

Sir.—l deplore the campaign of vilification against the press and the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation over its justified broad coverage of the Springbok tour and the issue of apartheid. Of course it is embarrassing to the National Party to have the real issues surrounding the tour discussed in detail, since it has lamentably failed to exercise leadership or to honour its international obligations by preventing the tour. Now it is forced into a campaign of unjustified slander against the media as a smokescreen over its patent failures. Worse, the

Government is now trying to shift the public focus away from the real issue — the vicious apartheid regime of South Africa which sees the tour as a propaganda triumph — towards the spurious issues of “law and order" and the “right to watch sports." No doubt it sees these as election winners, but the world at large will not be fooled — it accurately perceives the Government's stand as an endorsement of apartheid.—Yours, etc..

PETER MAYWALD. Methodist Missionary to Tonga. August 2, 1981.

Sir,—l quote from the Gleneagles Agreement: “The urgent duty of each of their governments vigorously to combat the evil of apartheid by withholding any form of support for, and by taking every practical step to discourage contact or competition by their nationals with sporting organisations, teams, or sportsmen from South Africa or from any other country where sports are organised on the basis of race, colour, or ethnic origin." I hope when the Springboks have gone home that the various pressure groups are going to protest to such teams as the Maori All Blacks. Otago Maoris, Canterbury Maoris who played in Christchurch a few weeks ago, and such other teams as are picked on racial and ethnic background. While such teams exist in New Zealand other countries are in breach of the Gleneagles Agreement by playing sport with us. There are many things in New Zealand organised on an apartheid basis in which Europeans have no rights.—Yours, etc.,

808 AUTRIDGE. August 3, 1981.