Ces Blazey was the NZRFU chairman from 1977 to 1986, throughout the most turbulent period in its history. He gave the pro-tour movement a face by being a prominent spokesperson at the time. He was obviously pro-tour, but remained courteous and never stated his personal views in interviews, rather, saying only the union policy. However, he firmly believed politics had no place in sport, and this resulted in a degree of naivety:
‘The primary purpose of the tour was to play rugby football. This was achieved’.
This quote demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance in Blazey’s view, which was also held by many conservative, pro-tour New Zealanders at the time. Why should politics, even apartheid, have to affect New Zealand rugby? Many did not see the importance of removing sporting contacts with South Africa and how this would isolate them from the world, nor did they see how New Zealand was ‘condoning apartheid’ in the rest of the world’s eyes. The primary purpose of the tour was to play rugby, but the primary purpose of the tour protests was to stop worldwide racial discrimination.
Ron Don was the chairman of the Auckland Rugby Union in 1981. He was also pro-tour, and like Ces Blazey gave the pro-tour movement publicity. His view is shown in this quote from the 1981 Tour Special on ‘Close Up,’ on the 4th of July 2006.
'I'm Ron Don, and in 1981 I was chairman of the Auckland Rugby Union, and I was on the council of the New Zealand Rugby Union. Needless to say, I was very pro-tour. I don't regret anything that was said or done in 1981.
'After the tour, the anti-tour groups were always referred to by the media as peaceful protestors. Now these same protestors did tremendous damage to golf clubs, bowling clubs and even fired a shotgun into my home.
'But we won. We beat the protestors; we beat the media, and most important of all we beat the Springboks.'
Don’s view was similar to that of many New Zealanders in 1981; he believed that sport and politics should not mix, and that rugby should not be interrupted by mere international policies such as the Gleneagles agreement. This primary evidence also shows that he believed the pro-tour side won; this is a point much debated since 1981. In the short-term, the pro-tour side did win, as Don says, they beat the protestors, the media and the Springboks. However, in the long-term, the protests raised much more awareness of racial equality, and how far New Zealand would go in order to play its part to stop apartheid.
Historians would find Don’s view interesting in terms of the battle between ‘old New Zealand’ and ‘young New Zealand;’ even three decades later, Don and others still believe the tour should have gone ahead, and continue to believe that rugby was more important than any politics going on at the time.
‘The primary purpose of the tour was to play rugby football. This was achieved’.
This quote demonstrates a certain amount of ignorance in Blazey’s view, which was also held by many conservative, pro-tour New Zealanders at the time. Why should politics, even apartheid, have to affect New Zealand rugby? Many did not see the importance of removing sporting contacts with South Africa and how this would isolate them from the world, nor did they see how New Zealand was ‘condoning apartheid’ in the rest of the world’s eyes. The primary purpose of the tour was to play rugby, but the primary purpose of the tour protests was to stop worldwide racial discrimination.
Ron Don was the chairman of the Auckland Rugby Union in 1981. He was also pro-tour, and like Ces Blazey gave the pro-tour movement publicity. His view is shown in this quote from the 1981 Tour Special on ‘Close Up,’ on the 4th of July 2006.
'I'm Ron Don, and in 1981 I was chairman of the Auckland Rugby Union, and I was on the council of the New Zealand Rugby Union. Needless to say, I was very pro-tour. I don't regret anything that was said or done in 1981.
'After the tour, the anti-tour groups were always referred to by the media as peaceful protestors. Now these same protestors did tremendous damage to golf clubs, bowling clubs and even fired a shotgun into my home.
'But we won. We beat the protestors; we beat the media, and most important of all we beat the Springboks.'
Don’s view was similar to that of many New Zealanders in 1981; he believed that sport and politics should not mix, and that rugby should not be interrupted by mere international policies such as the Gleneagles agreement. This primary evidence also shows that he believed the pro-tour side won; this is a point much debated since 1981. In the short-term, the pro-tour side did win, as Don says, they beat the protestors, the media and the Springboks. However, in the long-term, the protests raised much more awareness of racial equality, and how far New Zealand would go in order to play its part to stop apartheid.
Historians would find Don’s view interesting in terms of the battle between ‘old New Zealand’ and ‘young New Zealand;’ even three decades later, Don and others still believe the tour should have gone ahead, and continue to believe that rugby was more important than any politics going on at the time.