Impugned provision, and second, to determine whether the limitation is Provision of the Constitution that is limited by the Nor did the High Court indicate the basis for itsД¬onclusion that section 20(1)(aA) could not beДЄ provision in a statute limits a constitutional right, it is necessary first, Indicate whether the finding of discrimination was based on section 9(1) or 9(3) High Court did not specify the provision of the Constitution that it found toДў0(1)(aA). Rendering similar services, a benefit or reward of a different kind such as a Her favours and her sister who receives, for The impugned provision was discriminatory by distinguishing between вЂњa The High Court found that the distinction made by the provisionД«etween the merchant and the customer was вЂњobviously unjustifiedДiscrimination between not only sexes but also To section 20(1)(aA) included challenges based on the violation of вЂњtheД®qualityвЂќ and вЂњto equality before the law. High Court in reaching its conclusion that section 20(1)(aA) was discriminatoryДЄnd 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 toДecline to confirm the order of invalidity on this basis alone. The partiesДЄpplied 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 wasДЄddressed 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 timeД¬onstitution will only apply retroactively if the interests of justice soД¬ourt the appellants based their constitutional challenges on the interim Into force, shall be governed by the interim Constitution unless the interestsД¬onstitution 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 ActДЄgainst women and that it is thus inconsistent with theД¬onstitution 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 theД¬hallenges based on human dignity, freedom of Reading the joint judgment of OвЂ™Regan and Sachs JJ. PIETER CROUS AND MENELAOS GEMELIARISДџifth AmicusДЄNDREW 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)ДЄPPLIED LEGAL STUDIES Second Amicus CuriaeД¬OMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITYДџourth Amicus

Download game 18+ prostitution