`Britse Haatlikheid' Yet
THE leading Nationalist morning newspaper in Capetown, Die Burger, has paid us the com- pliment of using our strictures on apartheid • as
its main lead story : •
BR1TSE HAATLIKHEID TEEN S.A.
GRUWELIKE PERS-AANVAL OP MNR. STEWARD Were its headlines—'British spitefulness against South Africa: Gruesome press attack on Mr. Steward.' Die Burger had already, a few days before, devoted considerable space to the views of the Spectator and some of our correspondents on the issue, with particular reference to the pos- sibility of a boycott of South African goods; other South African newspapers. such as the Johannesburg Sunday Times, have also mentioned them, leaving their readers in no doubt of the hostile press South Africa is now getting in Great Britain.
We are much heartened by letters from readers in South Africa about this attention which (to quote one correspondent) 'indicates how deeply disturbed the authorities are; and that, of course, is very encouraging.' As we said last week, the time has passed when the South African authori- ties can be moved by polite expressions of dis- approval. Our intention was not, in fact, to attack Mr. Steward, but his office; and it is gratifying that Die Burger has hit upon the exact descrip- tion, 'gruesome,' of the activities that he, as Director of Information at South Africa House, is now being called upon to defend.
It is satisfactory, too. that a few Tories are beginning to realise that it is time they spoke out; notably a new MP, Christopher Chataway. Since the day of F. E. Smith the old and wretched Commons tradition that a 'maiden' must be gentle and restrained has rarely—Sir Alan Herbert was an exception—been successfully defied: the more credit, theh, to Mr. Chataway for his outspoken condemnation of apartheid in his own maiden speech this week. Admittedly he began by echoing the dubious Times argument that more harm than good is done if those with nothing to lose demand racial tolerance at pistol point; but he went on to point his own pistol at what some competent judges have argued might well prove to be the heart of the matter : racial discrimination in sport.
Mr. Chataway's suggestion is that the MCC (and presumably every other sporting body) should refuse to play South Africa unless it has a multi-racial team. Up to the present, the atti- tude of most sporting authorities here is that they should abide by the laws and customs of the host; and within limits this is sensible enough (for example, over Sunday observance). But apartheid poses a problem that cannot be settled on this basis, because it means that sporting bodies here, if they accept South African rules. are in effect helping to depriVe fellow-sportsmen there of opportunities that ought to be theirs as of right.
The first need is to insist on the establishment of equal rights: that is to say. where a player has the ability he should be selected regardless of his colour. The second is to insist that there should be no colour bar among spectators: no 'Whiles Only' audiences, A boycott of all sporting events against white South African sides until these aims are achieved could do no harm. It would not entail 'interfering with the rights of a sovereign State' or 'dictating to another country what her internal policies should be.' It would not cause any substantial loss of income to the native popu- lation. But it would indicate in the plainest pos- sible manner that we in this country are not pre- pared to countenance racial discrimination in any country in the Commonwealth.
In the meantime, though, the arrangements for Covent Garden's ballet tour of South Africa next February can be represented as a small tactical gain in the struggle against apartheid. True, Johaar Mosaval, a non-white South African dancer who belongs to the company, will not be in the party because of the law forbidding whites and non-whites from appearing together on the same stage; and Mr. Tom Driberg argued in the House earlier this week that this was grounds for cancelling a tour supported by public funds. On the other hand the company will be playing twice before mixed audiences and twice before non- whites.
From the point of view of Equity, this is a victory for its 'foot-in-the-door' policy. Since 1957 Equity has insisted, and insisted on the whole .successfully, that none of its members appear in the theatres in which any kind of colour bar operates unless there is a clause in the contract insisting that- 'a definite proportion' of perform- ances be given before mixed or non-European audiences. Equity can argue that it has done its job, which is to see that its members get work. while at the same time pointing to progress towards racial equality made entirely on its own initiative. The British Council, which is guaran- teeing the tour against loss, seems to take the line that since the saving clause exists the tour should have its blessing. These attitudes have a certain foundation in common sense, but are they enough?
Certainly they are a great deal more respectable than the indifference of Covent Garden. which. in the case of Mr. Mosaval, falls back on the ancient bromide about wishing to 'avoid embarrasSment to one of our own artists,' and, in the words of the General Administrator, Mr. Webster, feels that it is 'not its place' .to concern itself with direct action against apartheid. The Royal Ballet, for all its pretensions to artistic dignity, lags behind most of the artistic profession in its concern for racial justice. Its tolerance has been thrust upon it. Even the present concessions to liberal opinion were .only negotiated with South Africa after the original arrangements for the tour had been re- jected by Equity as inadequate.
Equity has done well to extort this amount of justice, but the time has come for it to do more. The whole question of tours to South Africa should be reconsidered, not on the particular issue of individual dancers (which can always be answered by reference to matters of internal artistic policy), but on whether the use of public funds to condone police oppression within the Commonwealth. Here is a case when the dicta- torial potentiality of a union could be put to really good use.
Previous page
