O’REGAN J and SACHS J “It is not necessary in the present case to formulate a precise definition of indirect discrimination. . . . It is sufficient for the purposes of this judgment to say that this conduct which differentiated between the treatment of residents of townships which were historically black areas and whose residents are still overwhelmingly black, and residents in municipalities which were historically white areas and whose residents are still overwhelmingly white constituted indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. The fact that the differential treatment was made applicable to geographical areas rather than to persons of a particular race may mean that the discrimination was not direct, but it does not in my view alter the fact that in the circumstances of the present case it constituted discrimination, albeit indirect, on the grounds of race. It would be artificial to make a comparison between an area known to be overwhelmingly a ‘black area’ and another known to be overwhelmingly a ‘white area’, on the grounds of geography alone. The effect of apartheid laws was that race and geography were inextricably linked and the application of a geographical standard, although seemingly neutral, may in fact be racially discriminatory. In this case, its impact was clearly one which differentiated in substance between black residents and white residents. The fact that there may have been a few black residents in old Pretoria does not detract from this.”24 It was accordingly submitted that because prostitutes are overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) female, and patrons are overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) male, the effect of section 20(1)(aA), to the extent that it criminalises only the conduct of prostitutes and not that of patrons, is indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex. [60] Counsel for the state did not deny that if only the prostitute were penalised by the section 24 Id at para 32. 36