Springbok tour

Press, 12 September 1981, Page 14

Springbok tour

Sir,—V. H. Anderson (September 10) asks, if the clergy still wish to be associated with this crowd — being protesters plus gangs. As a once responsible, even respectable citizen — now an anti-tour protester — I hasten to suggest that I hope so. Along with R. Miedema (September 10), I believe that any thinking person with some worth-while morals should be expressing opposition to the suffering of the blacks under the oppressive regime that sponsors the Springbok tour.—Yours, etc., R. P. ANKER. September 10, 1981. Sir,—lf the Springbok tour controversy involved New Zealand alone the comments of your editorial (September 11) may be justified. However, in a wider context your views are typical of the parochialism which has blighted this country. If, in eight or so years time, the Rugby Union has the inanity to invite. another Springbok team, New Zealanders will remember the delays at blocked intersections and the other disturbances to daily life. If these memories are strong enough the resultant political pressure would prevent any team from apartheid South Africa coming to this country. If the resultant isolation of that country hastens the demise of its iniquitous system of racial discrimination then the small inconveniences ex- - perienced by Christchurch residents will have been well worth-while—Yours, etc., ROGER BROWNE. September 11, 1981.

Sir,—Your editorial today follows a stream of “Good oh the cops — the protesters deserve all they get" comments.

Yet you refuse to prinfarticles and letters detailing specific incidents that make protesters feel the police are pawns of an oppressive government. In many marches I have found myself at the forefront of confrontations with authorities or tour supporters, yet I have never used any form of violence against people or property. But Hamilton hurt police pride. It maddened rugby addicts who want their “fix” and couldn’t care less about apartheid. Since then I often wear a crash-helmet because nonviolence is no defence against angry batons or beer-bottles. Left to editorials and your “decent" ineffectual protests the world would not know how many of us really feel about apartheid and our own government. I am proud to be a protester.—Yours, etc.. ALAN WILKINSON. September 11, 1981. Sir,—lf the anti-tour protesters (HART, C.A.T., C.0.5.T., etc.) were fair-minded they would freely acknowledge the remarkable degree of patience and tolerance afforded them by the Government, the Rugby Union, media, general public and especially the police. Protests that were solemnly promised to be peaceful have caused large-scale destruction of property, serious inconveni-: ence and quite unnecessary waste of millions of dollars. Yet their spokesmen persist in offering ridiculous excuses, making outrageous claims and blaming everyone else for two months of unjustified violence and bitter confrontation. By completely disregarding the rights of other citizens and making such absurd claims and excuses they have lost all credibility. When the final costs of maintaining law and order in the face of all this unnecessary nation-wide violence are assessed, there is no doubt as to who should be required to foot the bill. — Yours, etc., E. MULCOCK. September 9, 1981.