VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J [92] By drawing a rigid line between persons relocated by the City and those evicted by private landowners, the City excludes from the assessment, whether emergency accommodation should be made available, the individual situations of the persons at risk and the reason for the eviction. Affected individuals may include children, elderly people, people with disability or women-headed households, for whom the need for housing is particularly great or for whom homelessness would result in particularly disastrous consequences.86 Individuals may have a range of incomes – some may be able to afford subsidised housing while others may be completely destitute. In the present case, the Occupiers have a myriad of personal circumstances to be taken into account in considering their eligibility for housing.87 Furthermore, it cannot necessarily be assumed that the City evicts or relocates mainly for reasons of safety whilst private property owners do so only for commercial reasons. Once an emergency of looming homelessness is created, it in any event matters little to the evicted who the evictor is. The policy does not meaningfully and reasonably allow for the needs of those affected to be taken into account.88 [93] The City rightly argues that ―queue jumping‖ must not be permitted. Opportunists should not be enabled to gain preference over those who have been 86 These are also factors to be considered under sections 4 and 6 of PIE. 87 The Survey above n 9 reveals, for example, that the Occupiers‘ ages range from 11 months to 68 years and that their incomes range from nil to R2 200 monthly. 88 See Khosa and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others; Mahlaule and Others v Minister of Social Development and Others [2004] ZACC 11; 2004 (6) SA 505 (CC); 2004 (6) BCLR 569 (CC) at para 49 where this Court noted that when determining whether an exclusion is reasonable regard must be had to: the purpose of the right in question; the impact of the exclusion on those excluded; the relevance of the ground of exclusion to the purpose of the right in question; and the potential impact the exclusion has on other intersecting rights. From the foregoing, it is evident that the Occupiers are disproportionately impacted by the exclusion. The effect that this exclusion has on their rights to life and dignity is significant. 43