UK 11 May 2007 Human Rights Shami Chakrabarti gives her view on how things have changed in the realm of civil liberties. By Shami Chakrabarti COMMENTS Sign UpGet the New Statesman’s Morning Call email. Sign-up The Blair legacy is mixed and even contradictory when it comes to human rights. The Human Rights Act, however under-promoted and misunderstood, is nonetheless our modern Bill of Rights - an optimistic and inspirational piece of first-term legislation. Similarly, legislation furthering sexuality and race equality promoted modern democratic values that are simultaneously British, European and truly universal. Yet long before 9/11 and the misnamed and ill-fated “War on Terror, Mr Blair was impatient with the implications of rights, freedoms and the Rule of Law. Judges were remote Dickensian figures wedded to outmoded nonsense like the presumption of innocence. Whether the subject was terrorism, asylum or “anti-social behaviour”, the “rules of the game” were always changing. Free speech and peaceful protest, rights to personal privacy and fair trials - these principles have all been seriously eroded by rafts of new laws born of the press release rather than the green paper. Even the rule against torture has started to look a little less absolute. Excuses for Guantanamo and “extraordinary rendition”, arguments that human rights laws don’t bind British forces in Iraq and the desire to deport undesirables to Algeria and Libya seem a long way from the 1997 promise to “bring rights home". A Barrister by background, Shami Chakrabarti has been Director of Liberty (The National Council for Civil Liberties) since September 2003. She has been recently appointed a Governor of the London School of Economics and the British Film Institute and a Master of the Bench of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. Subscribe For daily analysis & more political coverage from Westminster and beyond subscribe for just £1 per month!