Pitched Battle

by Larry Writer

  The RAAF, in the end, was not required. The Springboks accepted an offer from the Civil Flying Services air charter company to hire four Piper Navajo seven-seater planes to fly them around Australia. Civil Flying Services was at pains to explain that its offer was a business opportunity, not a political statement.

  While the Springboks would be airborne while travelling around Australia, actually setting down in Perth after their flight from Johannesburg was proving more problematic. The ACTU’s West Australian members said they would not service the South African Airways aircraft when it flew into Perth Airport on Saturday 26 June. This would leave the jet-lagged players stranded on the tarmac indefinitely, with their first match, against Western Australia, due to be played the following day. The West Australian branch of the Transport Workers Union, however, which was then at loggerheads with its national and state organisations, defied the edict. The Springboks’ plane would be allowed to land and be serviced by its members.

  In federal parliament, when Opposition leader Gough Whitlam remarked in Question Time that the Government’s support for the Springbok tour was tantamount to supporting apartheid, McMahon rose to his feet. ‘On several occasions both I and other members of the Government have expressed our abhorrence of separatism, or apartheid … But I also want to make clear to the Honourable Gentleman that there are some principles which we have consistently observed and will continue to observe. The first one is that we do not believe in interference in the internal affairs of other countries.’ At this, Labor front-bencher Jim Cairns interjected: ‘What about Vietnam?’ McMahon continued to say that polls indicated that a great majority of Australians, none of whom were racist, believed that sport and politics were separate, and welcomed visits by South African teams. ‘When the South African surf lifesaving team came to Australia recently, many Australians not only resented the activities of the anti-apartheid demonstrators but also showed their approval of the visit by the South Africans.’ Then, pointing at Whitlam, McMahon said, ‘I hope every sporting association will remember the statement alleged to have been made by the leader of the Opposition yesterday — and not denied — that he is in the forefront of anti-apartheid activities and that he will resist the visits to Australia of South African sportsmen.’

  The next blow was struck by Father Richard Buchhorn, who had been horrified by the repression he witnessed on a visit to South Africa more than a decade before, and now wrote eloquently from his parish in Quirindi, northern New South Wales, to 50 prominent Australian rugby players asking them to consider not playing against South Africa. He sent copies of his letter to rugby officials, bishops, priests, nuns, brothers, politicians, and other interested parties.

  ‘One of the contradictions of our age’, Buchhorn began his remarkable letter, ‘is that people are ever more aware of the sufferings of their fellow men, but at the same time feel more inadequate and frustrated when it comes to helping them …

  I would see part of my role as a priest as trying to help people to see the possibilities open to them for effective action on behalf of others. And that is why I am writing to you. As a rugby union footballer likely to be asked to play against the Springboks during their tour of Australia this year you are in a position to act simply but effectively by publicly declaring yourself unavailable for any match against them. This I ask you to do.

  Your decision, as is my request, would have to be made against a background of a fair knowledge of the situation in South Africa. Because this is so important, I enclose a reading list to supplement the following brief comments. In South Africa, a man’s race is all important. It determines whether he can vote, join a trade union, use a trowel, compete for an award for playing Beethoven, belong to a political party nominating candidates for parliament; whom he can marry; whose hospitality he can accept; what education he can get, what wage he can be paid, what work he can do; where he can live, get medical treatment, buy a stamp, get his dry-cleaning done, be buried.

  And in all these things, the 19 per cent white portion of the population call the tune, very much to their own advantage. The land reserved for each white man is 27 times that set aside for each non-white. A white man has 58 times a better chance of matriculating than an African. For each white child contracting kwashiorkor, a disease caused by malnutrition, there are 1,400 cases among African children. The average wage for a white man in the mining industry is 16 times that of the African.

  The non-whites are subject to daily humiliation and degradation by discriminatory laws administered with a ruthlessness unequalled since the days of Nazi Germany. South Africa is a bitter reminder to the coloured peoples of the world of what they have suffered at the hands of the white man. Its racism, according to [Burmese diplomat and UN secretary-general] U Thant, is the greatest single threat to world peace. It is a test case, confronting mankind with a choice: discrimination or brotherhood.

  Buchhorn continued that it was impractical and pointless to seek to apportion blame for the creation of this tragic state of affairs …

  But can any man remain indifferent and apathetic as to the future? Dare any man wash his hands of this sordid mess, and just say: ‘There’s nothing I can do.’ Could you close your eyes to a possibility which is open to you? Robert Kennedy, in a talk given in South Africa in 1966, summed it up: ‘Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that will sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.’

  The priest outlined his reasons for making his request of the footballers:

  Firstly, one expects that sportsmen would be more open to ideals of equality and ‘fair-go’ than businessmen or politicians: and this has in fact proved so. Last year two members of the Victorian Amateur Athletics Association resigned in protest over an invitation to a South African athletics team. [Coach] Bryan Palmer has said that he will boycott the Springbok tour: he said that he had constantly preached the great brotherhood of rugby to young Australians: ‘I can’t go back on all I’ve said and support an apartheid team.’ Six [sic] former Wallabies who have toured South Africa have called for the abandonment of the tour, and said that they would not play sport against South Africa under present conditions. The issue is quite clear. To accept competition with an all-white team as representative of South Africa is to condone racial discrimination. Some 81 per cent of the population of that country are excluded on the basis of their race. This is the result of deliberate Government policy. The Prime Minister of South Africa assured his parliament (11/4/67) that ‘… no mixed sports between whites and non-whites will be practised locally … If any person, either locally or abroad, adopts the attitude that he will enter into relations with us only if we are prepared to jettison the separate practising of sport prevailing among our own people in South Africa, then I want to make it clear that I am not prepared to pay that price. On that score I want no misunderstanding whatsoever … on this principle we are not prepared to compromise, we are not prepared to negotiate and we are not prepared to make any concessions.’

  This policy has been implemented, and in many ways tightened. For example, permits have only recently been refused for multi-racial social golf days for the clergy. The names of Basil D’Oliveira, Papwa Sewgolum, Arthur Ashe spring to mind as examples. Others abound in news reports.

  Secondly, ostracism in the field of sport is proving effective. Certainly decades of acceptance in international sport did nothing to reverse the intrusion of apartheid into sport within South Africa, and many who have played against them discount any possibility of this ever happening. But isola
tion in various fields of international sport has brought leading South African sportsmen to the point of questioning, publicly, the wisdom of apartheid in sport in a way which would never have happened a few years ago. It has led to certain concessions: Maoris in the All Blacks team, and a visa for Evonne Goolagong (as ‘honorary whites’).

  Unfortunately these concessions are more signs of desperation for acceptance in international sport than of a cracking of the system. But they are cracks, and worth working on. The whole point about the campaign against racialism in sport is that if South Africans could play sport across racial lines, they would soon discover a common humanity, and notions of racial superiority, or at least of racial difference as being something all-important, would crumble. And it is these notions which provide the under-pinning on which the whole system of apartheid depends. A senior Nationalist said in 1965: ‘Today it is rugby, tomorrow it would be cricket and the next day swimming. Where will it all end? It would be the first step towards social integration. It would be playing right into the hands of our enemies.’

  Thirdly, you play rugby union. Sport plays a big part in the life of white South Africans. But, especially in the eyes of the Afrikaners, Rugby is the sport most closely identified with the Nationalist identity and aspirations which also find their expression in apartheid. It is for them what Aussie rules is for many Victorians. The threat of isolation in this field in particular would have great impact. This is understood by many opponents of apartheid, which makes the forthcoming tour an obvious target for demonstrations. One can deplore, and judge as self-defeating, any violence or destruction involved. But these would largely result from frustration at the failure of Australians, especially sportsmen, to recognise, deplore, and protest against the infinitely greater violence and destruction which apartheid daily inflicts on the people of South Africa.

  If you do what I ask, and take your stand with Bryan Palmer and the six [sic] Wallabies mentioned above, your action may or may not unleash a landslide. Nevertheless, I would see it as having a number of effects. Firstly, it would confront all Australians, and especially those concerned with the administration of sport, with the question of our tacit acceptance of racial discrimination and political interference in sport. It would also pose questions for those politicians and businessmen whose dealings with South Africa, while described as ‘neutral’ with regard to apartheid, actually lend support to it. And as Australians are not altogether blameless in the matter of racialism, it could challenge us to face up to our shortcomings.

  Secondly, there could be no more effective way open to you for getting disapproval of apartheid across to the ordinary white South African. The impact of a unanimous resolution of the United Nations condemning apartheid would be chicken-feed by comparison. Nothing could be better calculated to bring them to question their racial policies: and there is no greater service one could render the white community in South Africa than this. Thirdly, you would bring hope and joy to a considerable number of people — black, coloured and white — in South Africa: people who dare to believe in the equality of man, and act on that belief. They have suffered for that belief, given of themselves in working for the brotherhood of men: people of awesome courage and moral integrity: people who because of what they are, what they believe, are now imprisoned, exiled, banned, under house arrest. They have no voice — the Government has seen to that. For you to speak out for their ideals would be to lighten sad hearts, strengthen resolution, and win their lasting gratitude. Camus’ description fits them admirably: ‘Indomitable men devoted to the unconditional defence of liberty.’ His call to us follows: ‘We must tell them they are not alone, their action is not futile, there always comes a day when the palaces of oppression crumble, when imprisonment and exile comes to an end, when liberty catches fire …’ This applies not only to the Sobukwes, Mandelas, Helen Josephs, but also to their friends and wives and children who wait for that day. It extends to the multitude of non-whites represented by the crowds who cheered the Wallabies as their very own during their 1969 tour. Their esteem would outweigh the probable resentment of people closer to home.

  To continue the quote from Robert Kennedy: ‘Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.’

  What I am asking would indeed take moral courage. It would demand honesty, too, in facing up to the objections and rationalisations which will present themselves as excuses for doing nothing. But it is not beyond you. The fact that one wears a football guernsey does not free him from his responsibilities as a human being.

  With countless others, I await your response.

  Yours sincerely, Father R.J. Buchhorn.

  Buchhorn’s extraordinary and moving plea to the rugby players bore no fruit. No player was sufficiently inspired by the priest’s fine words to make himself unavailable for selection. There were also those church men who, while opposing apartheid, were not keen to cut sporting ties with South Africa, and were concerned at the prospect of violence resulting from attempts to disrupt matches. Yet others who read the letter responded indignantly, demanding to know why a Catholic priest was meddling in a rugby tour. Some wondered why Buchhorn wasn’t campaigning for Aboriginal rights and against communism.

  The federal and state governments began pressuring the media to take a pro–South Africa, pro–Springbok tour stance, not that conservative proprietors such as Sir Frank Packer, Rupert Murdoch, and the Fairfax family needed encouragement.

  Most newspapers around Australia toed the government’s line and stigmatised anti-apartheid groups as a small but noisy bunch of loutish, communist-manipulated unionists and students bent, as one rabid journal put it, on ‘meting out cruel, humiliating and abusive treatment to a small group of South African rugby men’.

  Like the nowadays-liberal Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC in 1971 was a profoundly more conservative organisation than today. The controller of ABC News, Keith Fraser, circulated a memorandum to staff reminding them of the need for ‘balance’ when reporting on the upcoming South African rugby and cricket tours and apartheid. Many journalists interpreted his words as a veiled direction to follow the government’s pro-tour line. ‘This question of apartheid is very much in the news at the moment, and the forthcoming visits of South African sporting teams will ensure that it remains a running story. It is imperative that we keep a proper balance in the handling of this story. There are two sides to this apartheid business and it is our duty as ABC journalists to present both of them.’ Of course, some journalists at the ABC were ‘for apartheid’ and others against it, but personal opinions had no place in news coverage. Similarly, Fraser stated, political issues should not intrude on the reporting of sport. Any story about people protesting against the Springboks’ visit should be balanced by one that gave the tour organisers a chance to tell their story. Journalists were cautioned against allowing activists to exploit them into reporting on a demonstration ‘as a device to publicise a cause’. Consequently, there was no need to ‘rush off and film every group that waves a banner … by all means film a demonstration if you think it makes the news of the day, but use some discernment in the making of your assessments’. In times such as these, when there was much unrest in the community, the ABC’s charter was to give a balanced, factual report of the day’s news. Today, more than ever, wrote Fraser, the journalists of the ABC had a professional obligation to keep personal opinions apart from professional obligations. ‘We have no charter at all to express editorial opinions so let us stick to our job and report the facts with balance and good taste.’

  Barry Cohen stood up to the massed might of the medi
a in the House of Representatives when he made the point that ‘emotive terms’ such as ‘long-haired demonstrators’, ‘organised hooligans’, and, doubtless referring to the criticism he himself had received, ‘opportunistic politicians’ were now emanating from a plethora of sports writers, radio commentators, sporting officials, some newspaper editors, and many writers of letters to the editor. His greatest fear — that the debate would degenerate into a left-wing versus right-wing, Labor versus Liberal, protest versus anti-protest squabble — appeared to have been realised.

  One prominent sportswriter accused some politicians of ‘hopping on the band wagon’ and others have suggested that it was ‘this year’s issue’ for protesters ‘who didn’t really know much about apartheid anyhow’ … The tragedy of the situation is that rational debate may soon be out of the question while both sides polarise and content themselves with hurling epithets at one another. A considerable number of red herrings have been dragged into the debate, such as ‘why do you not protest against the Russian soccer team and the Moscow Circus because of the treatment of Soviet Jewry?’ My only reply to that is I am not aware of Jews being excluded from soccer, ballet or the circus simply because they are Jews …

  It is not difficult to understand the cricketers’ and footballers’ argument that all they want to do is play cricket and rugby. As a cricket enthusiast of 25 years I can understand their feelings. What we are asking is that they understand our feelings and the feelings of the [millions of] black and coloured people who have to suffer under apartheid every hour of the day, every day of the week, for the whole of their lives. It is simply that in our order of priorities, cricket and rugby come second … The three most important things in South Africa, we are told, are politics, religion and rugby and not necessarily in that order.

  I want to deal now with the role that I would like to see opponents of the tour play. First, I think there is a growing awareness among us that there is an enormous gap between the intimate knowledge of apartheid of a small informed section of the community and the ignorance of it of the great majority of Australians. I have been appalled at the general ignorance of apartheid in this Parliament. If one were to ask the man in the street what he thought apartheid was, he would probably reply that he thought it meant the blacks and whites had to use separate toilets and that there was segregated sport and so on. He would be shocked if you told him that 900,000 blacks were arrested for not having their passes on them, or that a person could be detained in gaol indefinitely without trial, or that striking or even absence from work was a criminal offence. What would our RSL clubs and ex-servicemen say if they knew how many of the governing National Party members were members of the South African Nazi Party and that Prime Minister Mr Vorster was interned during the war for his Nazi activities?