MOKGORO J [30] Section 35 of the Interim Constitution further permits this Court to “have regard to comparable foreign case law” in interpreting Chapter 3 of the Constitution. Various foreign courts have found the right to receive information to be embraced within the concept of freedom of expression. Thus, for example, in Re Ontario Film & Video Appreciation Society and Ontario Board of Censors, the Ontario High Court of Justice wrote that the freedom of expression guaranteed under the Charter [A]lso extends to the listener and to the viewer, whose freedom to receive communication is included in the guaranteed right.42 In R v Butler, the Supreme Court characterised the right at stake as trammelled by a statute that “restrict[ed] the communication of certain types of materials based on their content.” 43 Clearly, the concept of “communication” embraces both the transmission and the reception of information. [31] The European Court of Justice has held that the right to receive information contained in the above-referenced Article 10 of the European Convention “prohibits a government from restricting a person from receiving information that others wish or may be willing to impart to him.”44 The Zimbabwe Supreme Court has held that what is truly at stake in freedom of expression jurisprudence is “the people’s right to know.”45 And the Indian Supreme Court has observed that: Political Rights (1966), provides that “ [e]verybody shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom . . . [to] receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” 42 [1983] 147 D.L.R. (3d ) 58 (Ont.) 66. 43 [1992] 8 C.R.R. (2d) 1, 27 (emphasis supplied). 44 Leander v Sweden, [1987] 9 E.H.R.R. 433, 456; see also Sunday Times v United Kingdom, [1979] 2 E.H.R.R. 245, 280 (noting necessary relationship between function of media in communicating information and right of public to receive same.) 45 In re: Munhumeso 1995 (2) BCLR 125 (ZS) 130. 17