Yeah. I think ultimately these are both right, and one thing the court may want to look at is the ultimate objective of the whole rights portfolio. This is not simply about one right trumping the other. The reason we have a framework of rights and we have, you know, 30 articles in total, is to achieve something equivalent to human dignity, human flourishing, equality before the law.
So I think in a way it's not really about one right being more or less important than another. The rights are a means for us to try to create a society that enables all of us to be equal, to enjoy our dignity and our freedoms.
I think the way that the privacy law has developed, where the court seems to see it as a conflict between rights, is rather problematic. I think to a large extent the rights are complimentary. Without a private sphere, it's very hard to enjoy a public sphere in which we can express ourselves and speak truth to power and vice versa, so I certainly don't want to answer the question by suggesting that one right is more important than the other.