Too much rights wrong?

Here's something for the Michael Ignatieff fan club (of which I know at least two of my friends are members): an assessment of his political position by Daniel Cere, political science professor at McGill University.

Cere is generally critical of "latte liberal" (I love that term) Ignatieff's vision:

What's wrong with this vision? The most troubling feature is its very jaundiced view of the soft-shelled institutions of civil society. Mr. Ignatieff sees civil society associations as potential threats to the autonomy of the individual, rather than essential parts of the fabric of personal existence that need protection from the state. He rejects the limited "political liberalism" advanced by classic liberal theorists such as Locke, Tocqueville and Rawls. This historic form of liberalism argued for the protection of civil society institutions from the coercive power of the state. In this view, "rights" establish a shield protecting civil society from the state.

However, for Mr. Ignatieff the basic institutions of civil society - family and religion - present serious threats to human freedom. His brand of liberalism tears down the firewall between the state and civil society. "Rights," Mr. Ignatieff argues, "are meaningful only if they confer entitlements and immunities on individuals; they are worth having only if they can be enforced against institutions like the family, the state and the church." Rights are to be used as swords against core spheres of civil society, not shields to protect them.

If this is true, maybe Iggy is better off sticking to lattes and leaving the liberal part to someone else, Gerard Kennedy perhaps? On another note, is it just me or is Stephen Harper actually looking like a prime minister? Would have laughed at that thought last year.