LETTERS

From F. 0. Shyllon, Philip Dudley Hawkins, Robert Armitage, the Rev R. Nevin, the Rev John F. C. White, Anthony Hem, Yvonne C. R. Brock, Hywel Wynn, the Rev P. F. Johnson, Frank Teer, C. E. Branco van, Miodrag Markovic, David Higham.

Cricket, lovely cricket

Sir: In your editorial (2 May) you com- mented with pride: 'And those who have most to lose from an outbreak of violence in Britain, from the creed that might equals right, are the ethnic minority groups them- selves—as the victims of skinhead "Pakky- bashing" know'. That statement of fact is incontrovertible. But you are naive to as- sume you will have in England against the blacks and browns as good and uninterrup- ted an innings as the Nazis had against the Jews in Germany. In Africa, India, Pakistan and the West Indies there are British (i.e. white) people; it will be a tooth for a tooth. I write as an African.

F. 0. Shyllon 6 Milton Park, Highgate, London N6

Sir: Your leading article on the Springboks' tour (2 May) brought a very welcome breath of fresh air to the subject. What strikes one most about the arguments proffered by those who object to the tour is their shallowness. Their main assumption appears to be that the black man in South Africa is discon- tented and feels distinctly deprived. This accords neither with the available evidence nor with common sense. One cannot seri- ously believe that the African is much hap- pier under a black authoritarian regime— that being the usual situation on the con- tinent—than he is in a white-ruled country like South Africa. This seems to be borne out by the fact that large numbers of Afri- cans seek each year to enter the Republic from the north. Furthermore, the majority of Africans take little interest in politics. What they are interested in is the security offered by a long-established and well-tried system of government.

Clearly, the advance of the African can only be hindered by successions of coups, tribal jealousy and capricious rule. I think the black South Africans realise this and thereby show themselves to be a good deal more realistic and mature than the Peter Hains of this world.

Philip Dudley Hawkins Chesham House, King's College London, Strand, London wc2

Sir: It is grossly libelous and offensive when your correspondent, Rawle Knox, says (9 May) that the Bishop of Stepney 'seems to regard [Pakky-bashing] as a lesser iniquity than the South African cricket tour'. The Bishop detests apartheid, not the cricket tour, and has been deeply involved in the efforts to prevent attacks on Pakistani citizens. This smear is unworthy of the SPEC- TATOR.

Robert Armitage 12 Milner Street, London sw3 Sir: In your editorial you make the somewhat arrogant claim to treat the ques- tion of the South African tour uniquely in the light of reason. You then proceed to make a rather sneery and inaccurate, and therefore unreasonable, reference to Bishop Robinson, formerly Bishop of Woolwich as a 'bad' theologian. From the point of view of reason he is a good theologian.

You go on unreasonably to overlook the basic reason why the tour should be can- celled. That is the fact that the South Africans not only select a racial team but they refused to accept a member of the tact party on racial grounds.

You claim that the cancellation of the tour would not change South African opinion because in your view it is rooted in a materialist appreciation of material pro- sperity. Some of the important reasons for apartheid are based in theology, and bad theology at that—or hadn't you heard? This sort of bad theology can only be removed by good theology. That is one of the reasons why we should protest against the tour. Maybe we can influence South African opi- nion by protesting that there is a more Chris- tian view of humanity than that seen in apartheid. Certainly we should try.

On any reasonable view it is at least as likely that cancellation will influence public opinion as it is that fulfilling the tour will influence South African opinion. So reason is not all on your side. Christian charity cer- tainly is not.

R. Nevin The Rectory, Cockfield, Bishop Auckland, Co. Durham Sir : Mr Peregrine Worsthorne (9 May) may well be right in all he says of the South African tour. Whilst it may have been better for the team never to have been invited in the first place, nevertheless, an even greater sin could now be committed in that having gone so far, any withdrawal of the invitation by the MCC could only be put down as a vic- tory for the continued and unabating threats of the Hain gang, and even worse, those fellow-travellers (whom he hastens to disown) hellbent on wanton destruction. Do this once, and our souls could never be called our own again. Anarchy could reign supreme. The country could be at the mercy of any mob. This is the predicament Mr Worsthorne seems to have overlooked.

As things now are, the only way of stop- ping this proposed tour is to my mind by government intervention. This they could easily do in the interests of the peace of the realm, which it is their duty to preserve. As in the case of Mr Colin Bland, all they have to do is to refuse the team visas. But frankly I wonder if things will be as bad as the threats made suggest they will be. My guess is the police will be quite capable enough to contain the hotheads, while for the rest they will never be needed except not to obstruct traffic.

In the meantime, perhaps one and all will read the very sound remarks by Mr J. W. M. Thompson in the article which follows Mr Worsthorne's. What do Mr Hain, Mr Eaks, with my lords of Southwark, Stepney and Woolwich plus Lord Soper, have to say in the light of the first two paragraphs of this?

John F. C. White 20 Abbotsbury Road, Broadstone, Dorset