O’REGAN J and SACHS J [118] Finally, it was argued that brothels could ensure that both prostitutes and customers had sex in a protected environment free from violence and in which proper health controls could be managed. Counsel who appeared on behalf of other brothel owners as well as the appellants, sought to reinforce this argument by stating that the failure of the state to enforce laws prohibiting brothels is proof that in practice the laws cannot be justified as they manifestly fail to serve the purpose for which they had been adopted. The argument on this score of counsel on behalf of SWEAT, CALS and RHRU, is that the criminalisation of brothel-keeping has the effect of weakening the fundamental rights of prostitutes to freedom and security of the person,73 and accordingly cannot be justified. [119] In essence, the argument in favour of providing constitutional protection for the existence of brothels turns on the contention that the fundamental rights of prostitutes to freedom and security of the person can better be protected in brothels than out on the streets. All the reasons, however, for holding that it is open to the Legislature in its judgment to seek to suppress prostitution as an economic activity so as to improve the quality of life in South Africa, apply with equal if not stronger force to the prohibition of brothels. Similarly if the rights to dignity and freedom of individual prostitutes are not limited by the Act, even less so are such rights challenged in the case of brothel-keepers. The same considerations apply to privacy. The reduced rights which prostitutes might have, become even more attenuated as far as brothel73 Section 11 of the interim Constitution. 80