case in some respects contradicted the earlier section 15 case Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, in which it was ruled that differential, detrimental treatment directly affecting an enumerated or analogous ground constituted a violation of section 15, and that any discussion about the law's purpose or reasonableness should then take place in the section 1 analysis. As constitutional legal scholar Peter Hogg has written, by examining whether the challenged law undermines dignity while still looking at section 15, and not yet section 1, Law moved much of the analysis of the law's purpose and reasonableness from the traditional section 1 test, and into section 15. This means that a person who claims his section 15 rights are violated must himself prove his dignity was undermined. Reactions to Law have been varied, but responses for the most part have been negative. The decision provoked many criticisms by legal scholars centered around the third stage of the section 15 analysis: the elusive concept of human dignity. In an attempt to move towards an understanding of equality as substantive rather than formal, the Court in Law replaced its earlier focus on analogous grounds in Andrews with one focused around the idea of human dignity. This has been criticized on a variety of grounds: it is a vague and abstract term, lacks coherence, is subjective, conflates multiple concepts, is a circular argument that begs the question of equality and has been imbued with undue importance and centrality in equality claims. The human dignity test has notably been criticized for being a vague, abstract, and general term. The concept of human dignity has been characterized as being fundamentally inimical to equality claims analyses and has been deemed "…too abstract and general to demarcate the specific province of section 15 or to assist in resolving equality litigation." Similarly, criticisms have been levelled against the Court on the ground that the human dignity test is muddled and is not sufficiently coherent a concept so as to effectively address concerns of equality claimants. This confusion may be due to the circularity of the concept of human dignity as a factor to consider in equality claims. For example, the Court in Eldridge v British Columbia (AG) wrote that the purpose of section 15(1) was to express "a commitment … to the equal worth and human dignity of all persons". Human dignity cannot be both a factor in