MOKGORO J human dignity or constitutes an impairment of a comparably serious nature.”78 These factors do not constitute a closed list and it is their cumulative effect that must be examined and in respect of which a determination must be made as to whether the discrimination is unfair.79 [73] In Brink v Kitshoff NO, O'Regan J, with the concurrence of all the members of the Court, stated: “Section 8 was adopted then in the recognition that discrimination against people who are members of disfavoured groups can lead to patterns of group disadvantage and harm. Such discrimination is unfair: it builds and entrenches inequality amongst different groups in our society. The drafters realised that it was necessary both to proscribe such forms of discrimination and to permit positive steps to redress the effects of such discrimination. The need to prohibit such patterns of discrimination and to remedy their results are the primary purposes of section 8 and, in particular, subsections (2), (3) and (4).”80 [74] There can be no doubt that the applicants are part of a vulnerable group in society and, in the circumstances of the present case, are worthy of constitutional protection. We are dealing, here, with intentional, statutorily sanctioned unequal treatment of part of the South African community. This has a strong stigmatising effect. Because both permanent residents and citizens 78 Harksen above n 73 at para 51. 79 National Coalition above n 12 at para 41. 80 1996 (4) SA 197 (CC); 1996 (6) BCLR 752 (CC) at para 42. 46