MADLANGA J abundante cautela (out of extreme caution). Indeed, when one looks at how the ACHPR reasoned, it says little about the specified proscription. In terms of section 39(1)(c) of the Constitution foreign law may be considered in interpreting the Bill of Rights. The legal position of at least two foreign jurisdictions also seems to point in the same direction as the international law I have dealt with. Article 9(1) of the German Basic Law provides that “[a]ll Germans shall have the right to form societies and other associations”. Van Wyk et al, relying on German case law say: “The freedom not to associate is also protected by [Article 9(1) of the German Basic Law]. The dominant opinion regards this freedom not to associate as the logical and necessary correlative of the freedom to associate – i.e. if the individual is denied the freedom to dissociate, his or her positive freedom to join or establish an association is also infringed. The freedom not to associate includes the right not to establish the association, to stay out of existing associations, to dissolve an association, and to resign from an association.”67 Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees to everyone “freedom of association”.68 In Lavigne the Canadian Supreme Court also recognised the protection – by this section – of the right not to associate.69 Of 67 Van Wyk et al Rights and Constitutionalism: The New South African Legal Order (Juta, Cape Town 1994) at 366. The German cases relied on by the authors are 4 BV erfGE 7 26; 10 BV erfGE 89 102; 38 BV erfGE 281 297; 50 BV erfGE 290 354; 31 BV erfGE 297 302. 68 In full, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads: “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 69 (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.” Lavigne above n 27. 22