Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Springbok tour

Sir,—ln my letter of February 15. I wrote, “the peaceable disruption of the Waikato match.” Both D. G. Sanders (February 23) and E. Mulcock (February 25) substitute the word “peaceful," a subtlety of distinction seemingly lost on them. When I say that the Government imposed the tour by violence, E. Mulcock gets it wrong again, claiming that I insist that the Government invited the Springboks. In the narrow context of the Springbok tour the protesters at Hamilton broke the law of trespass, peaceably. In the wider context of the Gleneagles Agreement, which New Zealand was committed to honour by Mr Muldoon's verbal pledge, a larger issue than the disruption of a rugby match, which outraged rugby followers, was involved. The majority of New Zealanders opposed the tour, and were outraged by it. which violated otir commitment to the Gleneagles Agreement. The majority had the right and the duty to express that outrage, no other course being open to it.—Yours, etc., M. CREEL. February 26, 1983.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19830304.2.103.9

Bibliographic details

Press, 4 March 1983, Page 16

Word Count
167

Springbok tour Press, 4 March 1983, Page 16

Springbok tour Press, 4 March 1983, Page 16