O’REGAN J and SACHS J precisely the kind of issue that is invariably left to be resolved by the democratically accountable law-making bodies. [91] We conclude, therefore, that although nearly all open and democratic societies condemn commercialised sex, they differ vastly in the way in which they regulate it. These are matters appropriately left to deliberation by the democratically elected bodies of each country. Voices such as those of the Gender Commission, SWEAT and the RHRU will help direct public and parliamentary attention to the constitutional goal of the achievement of equality between men and women. [92] Counsel for the state contended that what is before the Court is not the wisdom of the policy of suppressing prostitution, but its constitutionality. He was not called upon to say that the policy was the wisest nor that it was the only one. Parliament could choose between prohibiting prostitution, regulating it or abstaining from addressing it at all. The Act opted for prohibition and, while this might carry with it certain problems, it is a constitutionally permissible legislative choice. We agree. [93] What emerges from the above analysis is that because of the commercial character of the activity involved, the right to privacy of the prostitutes is attenuated. What is also clear is that there is a strong public interest in the regulation of prostitution in a manner which will foster the achievement of equality between men and women. Open and democratic societies generally denounce prostitution. Some criminalise it, others make it difficult by criminalizing activities associated with it, while others permit it with reluctance and subject it to fairly stringent 63