Ignatieff or ignorant?

Well, I don't know. We've been reading Michael Ignatieff's two essays published into a book format called Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Though he skillfully advocates his preference for reducing the "catalogue" of human rights to [only] include the negative liberties (so to speak) I think I do have to agree with the critique that Diane F. Orentlicher puts forward. She points out two important things and I give her credit for her clear-minded conclusions.

1) That his points concerning the seperation of religion and human rights is not a sufficient one as the problem he adresses with Islamic countries will not produce a solution excluding religion. Instead, there should be more efforts put into human rights advocations, in the dialogue with some of the Middle Eastern countries, based on justifications derived from [their] religion. I agree with her here that this approach should be practiced to a larger degree and to the extent it can.

2) The second is on "procedural inclusiveness". I'll just quote her here.
"This strategy recognizes that the human rights idea faces a crisis of legitimacy principally because the process by which the key international treaties were drafted was highly exclusionary. With this diagnosis, the cure suggests itself; the trans-cultural process by which "universal" rights are constructed must become truly inclusive. And as Ignatieff suggests, we must be committed to the ideal of an 'inter-cultural dialogue in which all parties come to the table under common expectations of being treated as moral equals'...if every state is entitled to contribute its perspectives to the inter-cultural process of constructing universal norms, this scarcely assures that every voice will have an equal opportunity to be heard." I like this. Not to the point that universal statements can always be subjectively shared but to the point it stresses the importance of everyone's equal opportunity to be heard. That's dialogue.

Agree, disagree?