MOKGORO J declaration of invalidity is whether undesirable social consequences will flow from the immediate striking of a statute, because a lacuna is created in the law.121 That, indeed, was the contention of the parties who urged the Court to suspend invalidity. They argued forcefully that the immediate disappearance of the challenged provision would lead to an uncontrollable proliferation of harmful pornography. [84] We are unpersuaded by that contention. As set forth in paragraph 8 of this opinion, the 1967 Act is only one part (the less important part at that), of the system of regulation of sexually explicit material in South Africa. The 1974 Act -- the practical enforceability of which is not in any manner affected by our decision today -- is considerably broader in application than the 1967 Act. The 1974 Act, which provides for the prohibition of the production, importation and distribution122 of material deemed “indecent or obscene or harmful to public morals”,123 has been the mainstay of the system of regulation of sexually explicit material since its enactment. The Act allows the prohibition of the possession of “undesirable” publications or objects,124 and also for 121 Although the Canadian Constitution does not contain a provision equivalent to the section 98(5) proviso, the Canadian Supreme Court fashioned such a remedy in Reference re: Language Rights under the Manitoba Act, [1985] 19 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 36, to deal with such a lacuna. The Canadian Supreme Court cited Lord Pierce’s dissent in Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke, [1969] 1 A.C. (P.C.), in which Lord Pierce applied the doctrine of “state necessity” in his analysis of the legal regime in the aftermath of the unlawful Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Rhodesia, opining that to disregard all of the illegal provisions in the territory would create a “vacuum and chaos.” 19 D.L.R. (4th) at 31. In Schachter v Canada, [1992] 10 C.R.R. (2d) 1, the Canadian Supreme Court identified three circumstances under which it would suspend invalidity: “(A) striking down the legislation without enacting something in its place would pose a danger to the public”; “(B) striking down the legislation without enacting something in its place would threaten the rule of law” ; or, “(C) the legislation was deemed unconstitutional because of underinclusiveness rather than overbreadth, and therefore striking down the legislation would result in the deprivation of benefits from deserving persons without thereby benefitting the individual whose rights have been violated.” Id. 27. 122 §8(1)(a), (b) & (e). 123 §47(2). 124 §8(d) provides that “[n]o person shall -- . . . possess any publication or object, if the possession of that publication or object has been prohibited under section 9(3) and that prohibition has been made known by notice 47