U.K. journalist attacks basis of tour protest

Press, 19 August 1981, Page 28

U.K. journalist attacks basis of tour protest

It is not often that anyone takes a whole page of, a newspaper. like "The Press” in Christchurch to appeal to me, but in all conscience, I cannot think of anyone better equipped to answer that appeal. Having read the page, with increasing disbelief, I'could not help thinking that what passed for the logic in it was rather like blaming the act of murder on the victim who has been killed. Tell me this.

Who is posing a threat to law and order in New Zealand?

Who is planting the bombs in this country? Who is threatening to crash suicide planes into crowds at sporting events?

Who is violating property? Who is burning down football grandstands? Who is seeking to prevent, by. intimidation and harassment, ordinary decent people from going about their perfectly lawful occasions? As far as I can see, none of these violations of the peace are being pertrated by the rugby community. Indeed, they are showing truly remarkable restraint in the face of deliberate provocation.

And finally, which of the newspapers and television stations in this country is presenting a fair and balanced account of the issues involved in the Springbok tour? Again, as far as I can none of them are doing so,‘and certainly not “The Press” in Christchurch.

I know that what appeared in your newspaper was an advertisement, paid for, hopefully, at the going rate, but I think it is fair to say that the slant of the piece was in keeping with the views of “The Press.”’

Slant is an appropriate choice of word, because an examination of your recent issues reveals such a denial of any pretence at objectivity that even the editor of "Pravda” could not have done a better job.

How can it be, therefore, that you can have the impertinence to print your newspaper under a front page masthead which proclaims that nothing is of value which is not honest, when for weeks past you have prostituted that assertion with almost every issue? When I walked into “The Press" building to glance through the files, I saw that the same Latin motto is carved in stone over the portals. I can only weep for the men put it there.

I think it was Voltaire who said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That has to be the basis of any democracy and any civilised society. It is unquestionably the basis of responsible journalism. That means if the rugby community of this country wishes to arrange a series of fixtures against anyone in the world, even against such a monstrous tyranny as Soviet Russia, it is perfectly entitled to .do so. What is more, it is entitled to do so without having to apologise about it and without being put to the slightest inconvenience. Further, if those sporting engagements are of sufficient public interest, it is entitled to have them .fairly reported, both in the athletic and, if the matter should arise, in the social context.

Equally, if the Salvation Army or The Band of Hope or the Grizz Wyllie is God Group or the Flat Earth Society or the anti-apartheid advocates want to stand, with sister Anna, under a banner, they are all'perfectly entitled : . to do so, either singly dr collectively, provided that they remain

within the law and take no action .which may lead to infringements of the law.

To attempt to deny any of those factions the right to do those things is to deny freedom in precisely the' same way that the anti-tour faction asserts that freedom is denied in South Africa. And since when have two wrongs ever made a right? But in any case, what sort of a moral argument can be made by a country like New Zealand, which took its territory from the native Maori population by force, which has discriminated against them ever since, and which continues to do so?

And how can you possibly equate the concept of Maori sport with anything other than undiluted racialism? The Springboks have one non-white in their team, and would have 10 more if they were good enough, but because he has the immense misfortune of being born white, no pakeha may play for the Maori team which, bless its soul, is due to play the Springboks at Napier next week. Can there possibly be a purer expression of racialism than that? Please do not misunderstand me. I do not blame New Zealand for their appropriation of Maori territory, and their ' discrimination against him, any more than I blame Australia for obliterating the Aboriginals, or the European immigrants obliterating the Red Indians in America. These were the natural consequences of history, as was the development of Africa. But pots should never call kettles black, and those who live in glass houses as fragile as this one in New Zealand should never heave the rockery around. As I was born an Englishman I have, as Cecil Rhodes so rightly observed, been lucky enough to win first prize in the lottery of life, but despite that, I would never presume to make political or sporting judgments against South Africa on racial grounds. How could I, with racial riots in Bristol and Brixton, in Birmingham and Toxteth, in Notting Hill Gate and Southall, and in many more places to come? Come to that, how could any Irishman make poitical or’sporting judgments about South Africa when a 10-year war in his country has remained unresolved by thousands of murders? The last time the All Blacks played in Northern Ireland, they went on to the field ringed with soldiers and armoured cars. Imagine what would be said if that happened in South Africa! Would it be mischievous, therefore, to ask what sort of selective morality is involved in decrying the one and accepting the other? I could go on. Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Afghanistan, Poland, East Germany, even Russia itself — in all these countries, and in many! many more, people are prepared to die to escape the tyrannies that oppress them, and yet Mr Gordon -Dryden implies that it is quite O.K: for us to have sporting contacts with them. His opprobrium, and that of the Fascist Left, is reserved for South Africa. What a very convenient set. of moralities he and they and you have. ; ■ So far the Russians have murdered more than 50 million of their own people in an attempt to stuff a failed political theory down

the throats of an unwilling population. Lubyanka and Gulag Archipelago are full, and the unmarked graves of the innocent Russian dead make northern France seem like a village cemetery, and yet, simply because they are South Africans; Rob Louw and Louis Moolman must be stopped from enjoying their careers as international rugby players. Fortunately, New Zealand has in Mr Robert Muldoon a Prime Minister who can not only recognise basic human rights but who is prepared to define and defend them in a way of which even Voltaire would have approved. This is more than can be said of New Zealand's newspapers and television service, and it is very much more than can be said of New Zealand's teaching profession. They are giving aid and comfort on the one hand, and life itself on the other, to the bacillus that will spawn New Zealand’s platoon of the Red Brigades. What can a country think of its teaching profession when nine-year-olds are used to assault Parliament? What can it think of its teaching profession when high school children aged 13 and 14 are given time off school to take part in protest marches and line up behind the men and women who are poisoning their minds? If that is what 30 years of radical school teaching has done for this country, then God help New Zealand. The Spring-

boks should be given the freedom of every city and town in these islands for giving your police the opportunity to learn how to deal with the trouble that will ensue.

No doubt Robert Muldoon will walk back into office at the next General Election as a result of all this. “Home and hosed,” is the laconic comment I have heard wherever I have gone. Good. He deserves no less. No doubt his re-election will infuriate all those who have done their worst to stop this tour. Splendid. They deserve all the infuriating they can get. Because of one thing , you may be absolutely sure. The fuzzy-faced fanatics, who have tried and who have now failed to stop this rugby tour have already lost whatever good will they may have enjoyed from fair-minded folk in the beginning. These fanatics are not protesters or demonstrators in the civilised sense of the words. A few are, those foolish do-gooders who cannot or will not see that they have no argument at all, and who. cannot see that they are being used to give credibility to an essentially evil and undemocratic force. The sour and vicious faces at the heart of the campaign ’are social terrorists. They don't have machine-guns yet. But they will. They will. And you. Sir, will have done your very considerable bit to put them there.

This article was submitted to "The Press” by John Reason, rugby writer for the "Sunday Telegraph”, London.