I wonder how our courts will respond if in a hypothetical case where parliament formulates a law to behead all "white-haired men," for example?

Would the judges in this case interpret the laws in its entirety or interpret in a manner befitting justice (justice must not be done, but seen to be done).

I will certainly like to believe that, the judge would question executive power than kow-tow (bow) to the executives and go on to negate the following impression created by the author of subject, as mentioned above.

"For a very long time, judges in the higher courts have 'made it law' not to question executive power. Judges create law by interpreting the 'the intention of Parliament' as meaning what the executive (meaning the prime minister and his cabinet) wants the court to do or not to do."