APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A

Excerpt from Main South African Laws which affect race relations: IX, 9, Separation in sporting bodies.

8. PROCLAMATION R26 OF 1965

(RACIAL SEPARATION IN CLUBS, PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT, ETC.)

9. SEPARATION IN SPORTING BODIES

On 9 February 1962 the Minister of the Interior said that as far back as 1956 his predecessor had stated that whites and nonwhites should organize their sporting activities separately; that there should be no inter-racial competitions within South Africa's borders; and that the mixing of races in teams to take part in competitions in South Africa or abroad should be avoided.

A few weeks later the Minister amplified his statement. He said that mixed teams would not be allowed to compete in international competitions held outside the country's borders, but separate white and non-white teams might do so provided that the organizers were not trying thereby to make the Government abandon its policy of separate development.

It would be in accord with the Government's policy, the Minister continued, if non-white associations were to exist and develop alongside the corresponding white associations. The latter could act as co-ordinating organizations between the two bodies at top level and serve as representatives to international organizations. One or two members of a white executive committee could attend meetings of the non-white committee when requested, to maintain liaison; or one or more members of the non-white body could attend meetings of the white committee in an advisory capacity when matters affecting non-whites were being discussed.

In 1964, as a result of these decisions and the repercussions, the invitation to South Africa to participate in the Olympic Games in Tokyo was withdrawn, a tour of South African athletes to Europe was cancelled, and the Football Association of South Africa was suspended from the international controlling body. The Government has regulated South African participation in overseas events through the issue or refusal of passports; e.g. in table tennis.

The terms of Proclamation R26 of 1965 are given on page 28. If non-white spectators are now to be admitted to sporting contests that are open to the public in white areas, or vice versa, official permits must be obtained.

APPENDIX B

EXCERPT FROM ASSEMBLY DEBATES APRIL 11, 1967

Prime Minister: . . . South Africa's attitude will always be that differences in domestic policy are not an obstacle to peaceful cooperation between countries. As far as that is concerned separate development therefore also applies to the field of sport.

I therefore want to make it quite clear that from South Africa's point of view no mixed sport between Whites and non-Whites will be practised locally, irrespective of the standard of proficiency of the participants. I am first dealing with our own people. Irrespective of the standard of proficiency, the position is simply that the Whites practise and administer their sport separately and that the other colour groups, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu, practise their sport separately. We have had problems in that connection in the past,

but our views and our attitude are quite clear-no matter how proficient one of our own people may be in his line of sport, we do not apply that as a criterion, because our policy has nothing to do with proficiency or lack of proficiency. 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 quite clear that, no matter how important those sport_relations are in my view, I am not prepared to pay that price. On that score I want no misunderstanding whatsoever. I also want to say in advance that if, after I have said on these matters what I still want to say, anybody should see in this either the thin end of the wedge or a surrender of principles, or that it is a step in the direction of diverging from this basic principle, he would simply be mistaken. Because in respect of this principle we are not prepared to compromise, we are not prepared to negotiate and we are not prepared to make any concessions.

I am not trying to trap the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or to do anything of the kind now, I do not want to make matters impossible or difficult for him, but I would appreciate it if the hon. the Leader would tell me in due course whether that is his attitude too, in order that we may know whether we are on common ground in this respect. If he thinks it is his policy then he may tell me so right away. In the second place our attitude in respect of sport-and I am now merely reiterating what my colleague Minister Maree said here on a previous occasion is that attendance of members of one group at such recreational events of the other group takes place by way of permit, if at all. There are sports grounds where it is not permitted, but that is the affair of those people. Where it is in fact allowed, it takes place by way of permit, provided that separate facilities are available and as long as it does not result in situations which are conducive to friction and disturbances, and I want to add, provided that it will not hamper the development of their own facilities. My concern here is to grant every population group the same sports facilities in their own area and among their own people that I grant the Whites. [Interjection.] The hon. member is bothering me.

APPENDIX C

Twenty-third Session, December 5, 1969, Agenda Item 31

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY

[On the Report of the Special Political Committee (A/7348)]

2396 (XXIII). The policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

EXCERPT

12. Requests all States and organizations to suspend cultural, educational, sporting and other exchanges with the racist régime and with organizations or institutions in South Africa which practise apartheid;

APPENDIX D

STATEMENT FROM WORLD TENNIS MAGAZINE

When South Africa refused a visa to Arthur Ashe, the 1968 U.S. Open Champion and a member of the World's First Ten, it was an obvious expression of the apartheid policy of that country.

The Davis Cup Nations will meet on March 23 with the object of voting on a proposal to eliminate South Africa from Davis Cup competition. USLTA President Alastair Martin has asked that South Africa be suspended from membership in the International Lawn Tennis Federation. A number of individual players have announced that they will not play in South Africa as long as the apartheid policy continues (Julie M. Heldman, No. 2 in the U.S. and No. 5 in the world, has just declined an invitation from South Africa's Owen Williams to compete in the South African Open because of her objections to their apartheid policy).

It is possible that some players will accept invitations to compete in South Africa. The two Pro Promoter groups, National Tennis League (operated by George MacCall and Fred Podesta) and World Championship Tennis (owned by Lamar Hunt and Al Hill Jr. and operated by Mike Davies), have made no statement about withdrawing the entry of their players from the South African Open Championships, and since it is financially profitable for the Pro Promoters to enter their players in Johannesburg, they may decide to play there. We find such a decision abhorrent.

An Editorial in the September 1969 issue of World Tennis was written on the subject of South Africa and expresses the policy of the magazine. In it we stated: "If Owen Williams once again extends an invitation to Arthur Ashe to play the South African Nationals and if a visa is again denied to Arthur, we strongly urge that all international players join with him in refusing to play tennis in that country. It penalizes the South African players and it penalizes the South African fans; any other move would penalize Arthur and those who sympathize with him. The player who allows the offer of $500 or $1000 or even $4000 to overcome his principles is to be pitied; he is selling himself and his ideals at the expense of self-respect. The international players now have their own organization which could be a powerful force for improving the game. This association lowered itself in public esteem by failing to take a stand on backing Arthur in any future conflict with South Africa. If this association is to be a force for the good and not simply a means to a very selfish end, the members must do what they consider just and honorable rather than only what is profitable. The result could give the association strength among its members and make it the most powerful group in the game.'

We hope that all players will refuse invitations to play in tournaments in South Africa because of the discriminatory barring of Arthur Ashe.

GLADYS M. HELDMAN, Publisher and Editor, World Tennis Magazine.

APPENDIX E

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 8, 1969]

SOUTH AFRICAN VERSUS BRITISH TEAMS GIVE SCOTLAND YARD NO REST

(By Alfred Friendly)

LONDON. An intended happy treat for British rugby fans-a series of 25 games between an all-star (and all-white) South African team and various local opponents-is turning into a different kind of sporting, or not-so-sporting, event: Police vs. demonstrators, right-wing vs. left-wing, Tories vs. Laborites.

The name of the game is no longer rugby, but race. The question is not which of two groups of 15 "muddied oafs" will score the most goals but whether national political policy is or is not a factor to be taken into account in international athletics.

The first game was played Wednesday between the South African Springboks and the Oxford University varsity. A simultaneous contest on the same field involved 400 of Scotland Yard's finest and about 500 anti-apartheid demonstrators. Oxford and the police won, by 6 to 3 in the first game and by four arrests and 16 heavings-out to two penetrations onto the field in the second.

In terms of the protesters' objective, to stop the game, the demonstration was a flop. Yet they may be on the way to winning their game nevertheless. Unless their determination flags, the future games, extending over the next three months, will be played like Wednesday's-under siege conditions. As an indication, all police leaves have been canceled in Leicester, where Saturday's match may or may not take place.

As the protesters see it, the Springboks are, as the leftish New Statesman put it, "a roving embassy for apartheid-and apartheid is not a game." The team represents not a nation, but the white one-fifth of a nation: In inviting it here, the British Rugby League was aiding, comforting, indeed lending its sanction, to the apotheosis of racial discrimination it is claimed.

Conservatives, others of right-of-center persuasion and, of course, the boys in the lockerroom have cried "Foul," and, in the words of one Tory member of Parliament, "Self-indulgent humbug." The anti-apartheid groups, they charge, have impolitically and unsportingly injected politics into sport.

From the other side comes the reply that it was South Africa itself which first did that very thing by forbidding integration in all its teams-school, amateur and professional and on all its fields.

Proponents of the matches contend that it is madness to cut off sports events with a nation simply because you do not like its domestic policies, just as it would be an absurdity to cut off trade, cultural and other exchanges. Britain does not refuse to send an art exhibit to Spain, to accept a ballet company from the Soviet Union or to mount an archeological expedition in Greece, they point out.

The analogy is wrong, opponents reply. The South African team members are not just citizens who live in a land whose racial policy is abhorrent but embody in themselves the theory and practice of apartheid. They are a team constituted directly by the workings of apartheid. Further, their country insists on racial segregation in the teams they may play on their home grounds.

The present controversy is only prelude. The ultimate aim of the protesters is to block a set of cricket matches here with South Africa scheduled for next year. South Africa's refusal last summer to accept a British team that included a highly respected colored (mixed blood) star, Basil d'Oliveira, rankles cancerously.

The battle has already been sharply joined. The British Minister of Sports has declared himself opposed to the rugby tour. The Prime Minister has denied permission for a game on a field administered by the Defense Ministry.

A star British player has announced his refusal to play when the Springboks meet his team. Some 50 Labor Party Members of Parliament have signed a motion barring visits of teams from apartheid-policy nations. Anti-apartheid groups from all over Britain have announced plans to demonstrate physically at every future match.

The New Statesman has clucked its tongue at any "disagreeable act" or "dangerous precedent" that might have to be taken to block the playing of the remaining 24 games. Obligingly, however-in case they had not occurred to the protesters-it listed a couple: Sit-ins on the fields, or putting the grounds out of commission with oil and trenches.

The British are renowned for their good sportsmanship in athletic games. But in wrestling matches over social and moral issues they can play pretty rough.

APPENDIX F

[From the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1969]

BRITISH PROTEST ALL-WHITE TEAM-VISIT BY SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY PLAYERS STIRS CONFLICT

LEICESTER, ENGLAND.-A new conflict over politics and sports has flared in Britain with the arrival of an all-white rugby team from South Africa.

The dispute has involved editorial writers, hundreds of demonstrators, thousands of rugby fans, Prime Minister Wilson and members of Parliament. Antiapartheid protesters have threatened trouble at each of the games on the 25-game schedule of the team, the Springboks.

So far, however, two of the games have been played with minor incidents. Today's game here brought clashes between demonstrators and policemen that sent several persons, including a police officer, to the hospital for treatment for minor injuries. Nine persons were arrested.

Police reinforcements drafted from other areas descended on this city 90 miles north of London as nearly 2,000 anti-apartheid demonstrators tried to march to the stadium where the Springboks defeated an English team, Midland Counties. The police managed to keep them away, and only a few demonstrators charged on to the field during the game. They were jeered by large numbers in the crowd and were carried off by policemen.

MORE PROTESTS PLANNED

Ian Nichol, a 19-year-old student from Portsmouth, drove 200 miles last night to protest outside the Leicester rugby football club stadium. "I feel so strongly about apartheid", he said, "that it's no use if you don't put your thoughts into

action.'

He was joined by other students and young people. Many said they planned to follow the South African team throughout the tour to protest its selection on racial grounds.

Unlike the first game, played earlier this week at London's Twickenham Stadium, the site of today's contest was announced well in advance. The first game had been scheduled to be played at Oxford, but it was canceled because the police felt they could not control the demonstrators there.

Then the Ministry of Defense was consulted about the use of army and navy fields. But Government officials, wishing to avoid any open involvement in the controversy, refused to permit use of a field after the issue was taken to Prime Minister Wilson.

Twickenham was announced as the site of the game 24 hours before its start, and 7,000 turned up to watch the Oxford University team upset the South Africans. About 15,000 attended the match here today.

As the controversy mounted, more than 30 Members of Parliament signed a motion objecting to South Africa, or any other nation, sending to Britain sports teams representative of only certain races. And the Prime Minister of South Africa, John Vorster, appeared on a filmed British program last week to say, “It's not for you to say how we should play sport in South Africa."