NGCOBO J involved in this case? The right of access to social security is no doubt implicated because this case is concerned with access to social security. But the impugned provisions exclude non-citizens from benefiting from the scheme. The exclusion of non-citizens from the scheme manifestly implicates the right not to be discriminated against. This question was not addressed in argument. It need not be considered on this occasion. The outcome would be the same under either constitutional provision. [103] My colleague, Mokgoro J, has approached the matter on the footing that the right of access to social security governs the question presented in this case. There is much to be said for this view. The parties themselves have framed the legal issue as involving the right of permanent residents not to be excluded from the benefits system. On this logic, the primary right implicated is guaranteed by section 27 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of the exclusion must therefore be examined by reference to the right to have access to social security. But, as the main judgment acknowledges in this case, the result under either of these constitutional provisions would be the same. [104] That is not to say that the other rights asserted by the applicants do not enter the picture. The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy and it “affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.”11 The founding values will inform most, if not all, of the rights 11 Section 7(1) of the Constitution. 67