South African policy

Press, 3 September 1982, Page 12

South African policy

Sir,-Mrs Elizabeth Sutherland claims that she and her organisation are non-political and are for freedom to choose our sporting contacts. If this is so, where were she and her organisation when our athletes were stopped by Government pressure from attending the Moscow Olympics? Why did she not support our sportsmen then, or is it only South Africa that we are concerned about? The implication to me is that her objectives are not for freedom of sporting contacts but purely political, and in support of gutless government.—Yours, etc, A. F. LESTER. August 31, 1982. Sir.—When Mrs Sutherland put the Springbok tour issue to vote (as she says) she probably did so at Lancaster Park at one of the rugby tests. It is well known that there was not a large majority for or against the tour and the country was split down the middle. If S.P.I.R. is what it says it is, why is it not fighting for the blacks and their individual rights? Mrs Sutherland’s trip to South Africa was a political brainwash. I am sure that if a black had shown her through South Africa she would have

returned with ideas to • the contrary. People are misguided by S.P.I.R. S.P.I.R. is still talkirig about the tour which has been and gone. Why can it not start fighting for the blacks or is S.P.I.R. showing its true colours?—Yours, etc., B. L’. ROBERTS (Miss). September 1, 1982. Sir,—Some recent writers to these columns have claimed a “majority” of New Zealanders supported the Springbok tour. Heylen polls published in the months leading up to the players’ arrival showed first 51 per cent, then 54 per cent were against the tour. The same poll showed that a peak of 34 per cent favoured it. Mr Muldoon stated emphatically, more than once, that the majority of New Zealanders did not want the Springboks to tour. While not wanting to get into a "numbers war" with S.P.I.R. advocates, I feel the above evidence would take some over-turning — Yours, etc., ' GRAEME YARDLEY. August 31. 1982. :•