Religious Freedom Does Not Supersede Civil Liberties | Nia Griffith MP | Part 6 of 6

[@henrikthedj]

That was absolutely brilliant... I watched the whole six parts... This was by far the best one... Those religious apologists are just pitiful...

[@anotherbennett6488]

Fantastic- articulate and humorous

[@maria369]

Kudos to you lady! Well said!!!!

[@SisterDanger]

Brilliant. Although I loved the form and conciseness of Will Barnes, this lady (Ms. Griffith) had a beautiful delivery of pointed humor to make the case.

[@dulala2564]

Bravo! Barvo! well said...

[@absalomcrane131]

does anyone know where I can find the results of how the house voted on these debates?

[@Thomeful]

www.oxford-union.org/news/debate_results here you go

[@Devin_Stromgren]

Any business owner should be able to ban anyone for any reason. That's how private property works.

[@Bchappy127]

her comments about the church of England may be true, however the church is its own institution and can be run the way it sees fit, why would public policy effect religious institutions

[@joaoabegao2888]

OxfordUnion, do you come to a result of the debate? Would like to know what happens after this part 6.

[@gregorylynn4785]

It appears that the motion was defeated. You can find the results listed here: www.oxford-union.org/news/debate_results

[@roxee57]

👏👏👏👏

[@deedlessdeity218]

She has wit, and she is funny. Yet it pains me to see her do what all her party ever does: The inconveniences imposed by the castrated Christians are bad when they affect gays, but the gays hanged by the Muslim world each day do not force a syllable from her. To the contrary. She defends the majority of their nations as "a minority".

[@colinjensen]

A few comments: They shouldn't have gone for two atheist partisan Labor M(E)Ps in a row. Yes, she's a good speaker, but her views are extreme, conspicuously in line with her masters, and condescendingly alienating to the audience. I enjoy extreme views for moot discussions, but her job is to present a minimal pair for the jury, and instead she attacks the mental stability of half the audience for 9 minutes straight, and that's not an effective debate tactic, nor is giving real-world examples for your side and straw man examples for your opponent. Yes, that clerk could have just picked a different career 25 years ago--and if they changed her job requirements into something that religiously offended her, they owe her no accommodations, not even to allow the clerk next to her to sign the certificate--no, it's religious freedom to deny her reallocation or accommodation within the office in order to force her to sign it. Or the Bed & Breakfast, another debate Ms. Griffith wins because she comically misstates the issue. "Perhaps they should just sell their B&B." Oh yes, that's protecting their rights. In the US that's called "separate but equal," and it's in the definition of discrimination. She's giving simplified answers to real questions, avoiding the real debates, and just made late-night talk show jokes to be loved. That room is 50% privilege and 50% actually concerned people, and she basically just aggrandized the privileged and directly insulted the 50% who were there to progress the issue.

[@mansonandsatanrock]

lol