The definition of Democracy does not even contain a hint that individual rights should be considered or that morality of any kind is a factor.
Democracy is the assumption that whatever the majority wants should be assumed to be morally correct.
Supporters of individual rights are supporters of globalism because of this incompatibility. This provides a distraction from seeing the ultimate incompatibility. Globalism actually would lead to total domination by international corporations, not world wide democracy.
Democracy was founded as a government for a city-state. That is what it should be. It is inherently unfair when applied on a large level under one government. It is ideal when applied to its original purpose of government for small autonomous areas.
If you want individual rights then admit you reject democracy. If you want democracy then support the growth of small autonomous areas. Anything else is just idealistic nonsense.
I look forward to your arguments of Individual Rights being compatible with Democracy.
Edit: If you wish to govern a large area with a semblance of Democracy, then it must have a large degree of local autonomy. Any reduction in local autonomy is a reduction in Democracy. You can not have a Democracy of a 100 million people. You can only have a coalition of Democracies.