MADLANGA J Also, this reading creates tension between the section 19(3)(b) right and the section 10 right to dignity. Woolman says “associational freedom prevents the state and other powerful social actors from determining the most basic contours of our lives through coercion”.82 Coercion implicates the right to dignity. Who one associates with or whether one associates at all are so close to the inner self that it is an affront to who one truly is and, indeed, an assault on one’s dignity, to be told who to associate with or to associate when you do not want to. And why coercion of this nature impinges on dignity is because dignity underlies all other fundamental rights. In Dawood O’Regan J explains thus: “The Constitution asserts dignity to contradict our past in which human dignity for black South Africans was routinely and cruelly denied. It asserts it too to inform the future, to invest in our democracy respect for the intrinsic worth of all human beings. Human dignity therefore informs constitutional adjudication and interpretation at a range of levels. It is a value that informs the interpretation of many, possibly all, other rights.”83 This is not about those who are comfortable with being members of political parties. It is about those who are not. It does not matter how few they might be. Rights-protection is about all those the Bill of Rights seeks to protect. It is not only about the protection of majorities. In fact, in some instances the interests of minorities may cry out for singular protection.84 I am not here talking about possible pleas by 82 Woolman in Currie and de Waal above n 27 at 397. 83 Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs; Shalabi v Minister of Home Affairs; Thomas v Minister of Home Affairs [2000] ZACC 8; 2000 (3) SA 936 (CC); 2000 (8) BCLR 837 (CC) at para 35. 84 See Gauteng Provincial Legislature: In re Dispute concerning the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Gauteng School Education Bill of 1995 [1996] ZACC 4; 1996 (3) SA 165 (CC); 1996 (4) BCLR 537 (CC) at para 66, where this Court said: “[T]here has been increasing recognition of the general importance of pluralism and diversity, and acknowledgement of what has been called ‘the right to be different’, which by its very nature is a right claimed by those who do not wish to be assimilated into the dominant culture or forced to live their lives according to the dominant norms.” 28