The Power of Parliment
Michael Howard writes in the Telegraph that judges must bow to the will of Parliament, he finishes his article with a plea:
The Human Rights Act has drawn British judges into areas of political controversy through no fault of their own. It is, however, vital for the future of our country that the judiciary exercises these powers with self-restraint, recognising that Parliament, accountable as it is directly to the people, must be allowed to exercise the supreme responsibility of deciding what powers are to be conferred on the executive.
Parliament must be supreme. Aggressive judicial activism will not only undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality of our judiciary, but it could also put our security at risk - and with it the freedoms the judges seek to defend. That would be a price we cannot be expected to pay.
But Howard misses or ignores the point that it was Parliament that gave the judges the power, it was Parliament that allowed the Human Rights Act, and it was Parliament that told the judiciary to apply the Human Rights act, and it is now our Government who are trying to ignore the Human Rights Act. It is within the power of Parliament to remove the Human Rights Act and tell the judiciary to apply some other law.
What they cannot do is to have the Human Rights Act or any international treaty which has the same effect of removing the power of Parliament, and then complain that they do not have supreme power.
What has happened is quite clear Parliament has allowed itself to be diminished by accepting binding international treaties, which limit is own freedom, its own power, the answer is not to ask the judiciary to ignore the law it has been told to apply by Parliament, but to change the law, that can only be done by parliament so they have in their own hands the answer to the problem.
