{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012512030798845043, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019249278152069298, 'mean_word_length': 5.582278481012659, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The rights of national majorities: Toxic discourse or democratic catharsis?

This paper traces the hazards of a majority rights discourse. It argues that this discourse can become a platform for dominant groups to recognize in policies that disadvantage and exclude minorities a legitimate defense of majority rights. The first section examines two ways in which multicultural frameworks already privilege majority rights and interests. The second section distinguishes between legitimate majority entitlements and the demands of entitled majorities to retain their privilege and dominance. I argue that an entitled majority (1) considers itself to be inherently deserving of special treatment and thereby does not believe that minorities have genuine justice-based entitlements similar to its entitlements and (2) views itself as owed appreciation for the ways in which it waives its putative entitlements to accommodate minority interests. Evidence of these features can be found in current political struggles in Quebec and Switzerland.