Rugby tour opponent

Press, 3 July 1985, Page 16

Rugby tour opponent

Sir, — It is obvious that the Rev. Arnold Stofile’s plain and effective message concerning the true state of affairs in South Africa, the increasing oppression and reinforcement of apartheid which lies behind the smokescreen of claimed improvements, has alarmed those apologists for racism, Bert Walker and Robert Stanley (“The Press,” June 29). Typically, as they cannot apparently refute the facts, they attack the individual or the organisation by innuendo and misrepresentation. Mr Walker adopts his standard dubious device of simplistic labelling, those who support apartheid are "Christian” (i.e. “good”), those who oppose it are ipso facto “Marxist” (i.e. “evil”).

Robert Stanley’s use of emotional but unsubstantiated phrases such as rabble-rouser lead to reservations as to the extent to which his long association with South Africa has reinforced innate prejudice and thus destroyed his objective credibility. — Yours, etc., ALISTAIR PRINGLE. June 30, 1985. Sir, — Robert Stanley’s letter (June 29) contained the preposterous claim that Arnold Stofile is a rabble-rouser with a genuine hatred of white people. I had the good fortune to meet Mr Stofile after the anti-tour rally on June 28 and was impressed with his humanitarianism and his desire to see equality and justice in South Africa. By no means can Arnold Stofile be described as a “white hater” and the genuine friendship and gratitude he offered me in our short meeting, made it a moving experience. Robert Stanley should remember that the anger in Mr Stofile’s speech is undoubtedly caused by years of black suffering at the hands of the white rulers in South Africa. Surely the black people have every right to fight for their liberation. It seems the only way in which they will get it. — Yours, etc., CHRISTINE BOWDEN. June 30, 1985.