v Corporal Punishment by Organs of State 1991 (3) SA 76 (NmSC). 32. The grandmaster of the purposive approach, to Constitutional interpretation, is the Canadian Supreme Court of R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd 1984 18 DLR (4t11) wherein it was stated as follows:~ "The meaning of a right of freedom guaranteed by the Charter was to be ascertained by an analysis of the purpose of such a guarantee; it was to be understood, in other words, in the light of the interest it was meant to protect. In my view, this analysis is to be undertaken, and the purposes of the right or freedom in question is to be sought, by references to the character and larger objects of the Charter [of Rights and Freedom] itself, to the language chosen to articulate the specific right or freedom, to the historical origins of the concepts enshrined, and where applicable, to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedom with which it is associated within the text of the Charter. The interpretation should be ... a generous rather than a legalistic one, aimed at fulfilling the purpose of the guarantee and securing for individuals the full benefit of the Charter's protection." 33. The purposive interpretation or generous interpretation also finds authority in Lord Wilberforce famous judgment in Minister of Home Affairs (Bermuda) v Fisher 1979 (3) ALLER 121. After referring to the influence of certain international conventions on the Constitutions of former colonies of the British Commonwealth, Lord Fisher called for Page 10 of 46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Love ness Mudzuru & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared by Tcndai Biti Law