Rugby tour

Press, 11 March 1985, Page 22

Rugby tour

Sir, — The Minto reasons for rejecting an open invitation to inspect for himself the present sports set-up anywhere in South Africa must have disappointed even Graeme Yardley (February 26). A “peaceful” anti-apartheid movement containing anti-nuclear and peace groups is seeking to achieve political ends not by tackling the Africkaner Government in South Africa but by imposing ostracism in sport, by inciting division and acrimony among fellow citizens and by threats of physical restriction, vio-

lence and destruction. After seeingon TV what happened to “Fergie” and Pinetree and the nature of crucial refereeing decisions, I am naturally keen to see a New Zealand team beat the Springboks on their own soil. Our Prime Minister has tackled the Rugby Union but neither he nor the present Minister of Police has shown any inclination to meet the Minto and other groups and to define just what is legal protest and the penalties for law breaking. — Yours, etc.,

TED MULCOCK. March 6, 1985.

Sir,—A. J. Campbell’s failure to dispute the main point of my original letter (February 15) must mean that he also believes there are other powers whose conduct is at least as evil as South Africa’s. He must then also agree that these other evil-doers deserve to be boycotted, etc., just as much as South Africa does, even if practical considerations make it impossible to boycott all of them. One way of supporting genuine anti-apartheid protesters in New Zealand is to persuade them to abandon counterproductive practices and adopt an attitude which would put the sincerity of their motives beyond doubt. They can do this by linking their anti-South African protest with unambiguous protest against just one of South Africa’s totalitarian attackers. — Yours, etc.,

JACK BEVAN. March 7, 1985.