Who makes the law?

It was announced that Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Opposition leader, had cancelled a trip to this country, because a British judge had issued a warrant for her arrest.

Her crime seems to have been that she was a minister during the Israeli/Gazan troubles recently.

We do not know who sought the arrest, although it sounds as if it was granted on the basis of Human Rights. So are we now to assume that anyone who is connected to any opposition to one of the in-groups, such as Hammas, as downtrodden and innocent, may effectively be black-balled or even arrested? Would such a person be tried here for an "offence" committed elsewhere? Can we invite, and allow safe entry to, any foreign political leader who belongs to a party or state not in favour here?

Do British judges now claim the power to judge cases of alleged abuses conducted abroad? Add to this the fact that we are powerless to return known trouble-making terrorists to their countries of origin in case the little darlings are prosecuted, and you wonder what protection we, the law abiding, actually get under the Human Rights legislation.

If protesters can now prevent a democratically elected leading member of a liberal democracy visiting us, where are we going? This sounds more like ideological justice rather than the rule of Law, and it sounds as if some members of the judiciary are allowing their own prejudices to swamp their judgments.

The proposed bill of rights, based on something like Magna Carta, cannot some too soon, with rights enshrined in constitutiona , and not subject to arbitrary suspension or interpretation.
Above all, we must eject any judicial activism.