The impugned provision was discriminatory by distinguishing between “a The High Court found that the distinction made by the provisionīetween the merchant and the customer was “obviously unjustifiedĭiscrimination between not only sexes but also To section 20(1)(aA) included challenges based on the violation of “theĮquality” and “to equality before the law. High Court in reaching its conclusion that section 20(1)(aA) was discriminatoryĪnd therefore inconsistent with the Constitution. Matters not which Constitution was applied by the Interim Constitution and section 9 of the Constitution, both of which deal with There is no material difference between the provisions However, considerations that militate against such a course being followed. Ordinarily we would have toĭecline to confirm the order of invalidity on this basis alone. The partiesĪpplied the interim Constitution as that constitution was in force when the acts Is not clear from the judgment of the High Court whether any argument wasĪddressed to it on this question. However, approached the matter on the footing that the Constitution Interim Constitution governs these proceedings. In accordance with the law in force at the timeĬonstitution will only apply retroactively if the interests of justice soĬourt the appellants based their constitutional challenges on the interim Into force, shall be governed by the interim Constitution unless the interestsĬonstitution expresses the principle that a dispute must ordinarily be decided However, I do not agree with the conclusion that section 20(1)(aA) of the ActĪgainst women and that it is thus inconsistent with theĬonstitution applies is governed by item 17 of Schedule 6 of the Constitution The right to privacy must fail differ in both their scope To conclude that the challenge based on the right to economic activity and Person, privacy and economic activity must fail. I agree with theĬhallenges based on human dignity, freedom of Reading the joint judgment of O’Regan and Sachs JJ. PIETER CROUS AND MENELAOS GEMELIARISğifth AmicusĪNDREW LIONEL PHILLIPS Sixth Amicus Curiae S v Jordan and Others (Sex Workers Education and Advocacy Task Force and Others as Amici Curiae (CCT31/01) Z(6) SA 642 2002 (11) BCLR 1117 (9 October 2002)ĪPPLIED LEGAL STUDIES Second Amicus CuriaeĬOMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITYğourth Amicus
0 kommentar(er)
