▁has ▁been ▁critic ized ▁on ▁a ▁variety ▁of ▁grounds : ▁it ▁is ▁a ▁vague ▁and ▁abstract ▁term , ▁la cks ▁coh er ence , ▁is ▁subject ive , ▁confl ates ▁multiple ▁concepts , ▁is ▁a ▁circular ▁argument ▁that ▁beg s ▁the ▁question ▁of ▁equality ▁and ▁has ▁been ▁im bu ed ▁with ▁und ue ▁importance ▁and ▁central ity ▁in ▁equality ▁claims . ▁ ▁The ▁human ▁dign ity ▁test ▁has ▁not ably ▁been ▁critic ized ▁for ▁being ▁a ▁vague , ▁abstract , ▁and ▁general ▁term . ▁The ▁concept ▁of ▁human ▁dign ity ▁has ▁been ▁character ized ▁as ▁being ▁fund ament ally ▁in im ical ▁to ▁equality ▁claims ▁anal ys es ▁and ▁has ▁been ▁de emed ▁" … to o ▁abstract ▁and ▁general ▁to ▁dem arc ate ▁the ▁specific ▁province ▁of ▁section ▁ 1 5 ▁or ▁to ▁assist ▁in ▁resol ving ▁equality ▁lit ig ation ." ▁Similarly , ▁critic isms ▁have ▁been ▁level led ▁against ▁the ▁Court ▁on ▁the ▁ground ▁that ▁the ▁human ▁dign ity ▁test ▁is ▁mud d led ▁and ▁is ▁not ▁sufficiently ▁coh er ent ▁a ▁concept ▁so ▁as ▁to ▁effectively ▁address ▁concerns ▁of ▁equality ▁claim ants . ▁This ▁confusion ▁may ▁be ▁due ▁to ▁the ▁circular ity ▁of ▁the ▁concept ▁of ▁human ▁dign ity ▁as ▁a ▁factor ▁to ▁consider ▁in ▁equality ▁claims . ▁For ▁example , ▁the ▁Court ▁in ▁E ld ridge ▁v ▁British ▁Columbia ▁( AG ) ▁wrote ▁that ▁the ▁purpose ▁of ▁section ▁ 1 5 ( 1 ) ▁was ▁to ▁express ▁" a ▁commit ment ▁… ▁to ▁the ▁equal ▁worth ▁and ▁human