Respondent did not submit on the legal foundation for the twin freedoms, the manner in which they can be restricted nor did he attempt to either distinguish the authorities cited nor submit on any legal authority where a contrary finding was made. 76. For avoidance of doubt, we have perused all the authorities submitted by Counsel for the Applicant and the Amici Curiae and we are satisfied that they properly express the Law in various jurisdictions. We are particularly persuaded that the holding in Print Media South Africa (supra) is pertinent to this Reference. In that case, Van der Westhuizen J. held that “freedom of expression lies at the heart of democracy” and went to state as follows:“……..It is closely linked to the right to human dignity and helps to realize several other rights and freedoms. Being able to speak out, to educate, to sing and to protest, be it through waving posters or dancing, is an important tool to challenge discrimination, poverty and oppression. This Court has emphasized the importance of freedom of expression as the lifeblood of an open and democratic society” 77. Similarly, in Ramesh Thappar vs. State of Madras 1950 SCR 594, the Supreme Court of India stated thus:“Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for proper functioning of the processes of popular government, is possible.” 78. The Supreme Court of Canada in Edmond Journal (supra) put the matter beyond debate when it emphatically held that:- Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 28