Nate, I enjoyed this episode far more than I expected. First of all, I congratulate you and Mr. Vierson on your cooperation and finding common ground in your committee work and personal relationship. I suspect that committee work was under different CPC leaders, ( not the current one?)
He certainly didn't want to answer your query about accepting differences in your indivual beliefs on a women's right to make her own health decisions in consultation with her doctor.
In talking about his Dutch heritage, I suspect he was raised in some branch of the Dutch Reform
Church which has a Calvinistic tradition. There probably are no exceptions in their belief so he really felt challenged when you said that surely a
woman has the right to make her own decision even if he didn't agree. His answer would be no,
but he doesn't want to say it out loud. Has
"preborn" replaced the term "foetus" in the medical world?, thought not. You rightly pointed out that although Canada does not have an abortion law, we do have medical standards regarding a termination, it's not exactly the wild west.
I wonder if he encountered some pushback from the party that endorses "freedom". It strikes me that their MP's are on a very tight leash with their current leader. Did he develop second thoughts?
In conclusion, unless there were pre- conditions for the interview ( which you have said there weren't), all your questions were kosher. I think Mr. Vierson would have come off better without the complaint, (in my view.)
I am looking forward to your discussion with the PM. One question I do have is, yes health delivery is a provincial task but health is also Federal Jurisdiction and It would like to know what the PM and the Health Minister plan to do about the expansion and possible takeover of private delivery and who on earth voted for that! What would Monique Begin say? 90 percent of Ontario hospitals have been allowed to go bankrupt ! Sorry this is a long reply
He absolutely did not want to be nailed down on exactly what his view are on particular topics. He said himself how many times he's brought up this "pre-born" (not a thing) stuff in the House, so he should expect to be held to account for what he says. This is what we expect from any people we elect to public office.
Terrible interviewer. Nate conducted himself so poorly. He was snide and off-topic. I was excited to listen to the actual topic, but instead he attacked his guest for rapping, and not being able to speak French well? His rapid fire interrogation made him feel guilty, which is we he started the podcast off with a sheepish snide half-apology, in which he sought validation from the audience. Hope someone puts him on the grill some time after a long day of work, like he did to this guest. Nate how do you feel about the scandals in your party. Do you like stealing money from Canadians? Tête carrée.
Can you give any actual examples of any of the various accusations you make in your comment? Or are you keeping it vague on purpose? Which specific parts were "snide and off topic"? Which parts were a "rapid fire interrogation"? Remember, your feelings aren't facts.
'We don't have a big platform so you are safe from prying eyes'...I think you will find this has changed after the controversy on this interview.
Great questions, excellent interviewing style, and no- you did not ambush him. He just had second thoughts and or a reprimand after the interview came out.
What, is this guy a total newbie? Has he never been interviewed by the Media or a Journalist at all? If these are issues he has a stance on, he should be prepared to speak to them. What a loser! No ambush here!
There are few people less qualified to make laws that Arnold Viersen. I wouldn’t trust him to clean the gutters on my house. The audacity of such a one to even stand for election is eclipsed only by the disdain for Parliament shown by the constituents who vote for him over and over again.
I came to this podcast via the Power Play youtube episode “The Front Bench on controversial comments from MP on gay marriage.” From Viersen’s viewpoint granting this interview must look like a total disaster. He was surely hoping it would give his bill related to protecting victims of the porn industry some welcome publicity. It would seem that CTV News completely ignored this and instead focused on embarrassing the Conservatives, stoking irrational fears that a Poilievre government would ban gay marriage. Some of the commenters fault Viersen for being evasive about his views. His real problem seemed to be that he wasn’t nearly firm enough in establishing ground rules for the interview. He should have only agreed to come on the podcast if certain social conservative issues were off the table. Not having done that, when asked about a bill on gay marriage he might have used the standard response that he wouldn’t respond to a hypothetical question, and let’s face it, that particular question is way more hypothetical than most.
I’m not sure why other commenters seemed to have a bee in their bonnet about Viersen using the word “preborn” rather than “unborn”. A pro-life website gives a good explanation of the reasons that a pro-life activist prefers the term “preborn” to “unborn”:
You don’t have to agree with their positions to resent trying to bully someone like Viersen into using “unborn” rather than “preborn”. The essay notes : ”’Unborn’ is used in the title of six films, most of the horror genre.” In fact, if you search the term “unborn” on IMDB.com the first title that comes up is the 2009 horror film “The Unborn” starring Odette Yustman and Gary Oldman. For “woman’s right to choose” fanatics, these unpleasant associations of the word “unborn” are probably seen as a feature; for pro-lifers they are a bug.
Nate, I enjoyed this episode far more than I expected. First of all, I congratulate you and Mr. Vierson on your cooperation and finding common ground in your committee work and personal relationship. I suspect that committee work was under different CPC leaders, ( not the current one?)
He certainly didn't want to answer your query about accepting differences in your indivual beliefs on a women's right to make her own health decisions in consultation with her doctor.
In talking about his Dutch heritage, I suspect he was raised in some branch of the Dutch Reform
Church which has a Calvinistic tradition. There probably are no exceptions in their belief so he really felt challenged when you said that surely a
woman has the right to make her own decision even if he didn't agree. His answer would be no,
but he doesn't want to say it out loud. Has
"preborn" replaced the term "foetus" in the medical world?, thought not. You rightly pointed out that although Canada does not have an abortion law, we do have medical standards regarding a termination, it's not exactly the wild west.
I wonder if he encountered some pushback from the party that endorses "freedom". It strikes me that their MP's are on a very tight leash with their current leader. Did he develop second thoughts?
In conclusion, unless there were pre- conditions for the interview ( which you have said there weren't), all your questions were kosher. I think Mr. Vierson would have come off better without the complaint, (in my view.)
I am looking forward to your discussion with the PM. One question I do have is, yes health delivery is a provincial task but health is also Federal Jurisdiction and It would like to know what the PM and the Health Minister plan to do about the expansion and possible takeover of private delivery and who on earth voted for that! What would Monique Begin say? 90 percent of Ontario hospitals have been allowed to go bankrupt ! Sorry this is a long reply
He absolutely did not want to be nailed down on exactly what his view are on particular topics. He said himself how many times he's brought up this "pre-born" (not a thing) stuff in the House, so he should expect to be held to account for what he says. This is what we expect from any people we elect to public office.
Terrible interviewer. Nate conducted himself so poorly. He was snide and off-topic. I was excited to listen to the actual topic, but instead he attacked his guest for rapping, and not being able to speak French well? His rapid fire interrogation made him feel guilty, which is we he started the podcast off with a sheepish snide half-apology, in which he sought validation from the audience. Hope someone puts him on the grill some time after a long day of work, like he did to this guest. Nate how do you feel about the scandals in your party. Do you like stealing money from Canadians? Tête carrée.
Can you give any actual examples of any of the various accusations you make in your comment? Or are you keeping it vague on purpose? Which specific parts were "snide and off topic"? Which parts were a "rapid fire interrogation"? Remember, your feelings aren't facts.
'We don't have a big platform so you are safe from prying eyes'...I think you will find this has changed after the controversy on this interview.
Great questions, excellent interviewing style, and no- you did not ambush him. He just had second thoughts and or a reprimand after the interview came out.
What, is this guy a total newbie? Has he never been interviewed by the Media or a Journalist at all? If these are issues he has a stance on, he should be prepared to speak to them. What a loser! No ambush here!
There are few people less qualified to make laws that Arnold Viersen. I wouldn’t trust him to clean the gutters on my house. The audacity of such a one to even stand for election is eclipsed only by the disdain for Parliament shown by the constituents who vote for him over and over again.
I came to this podcast via the Power Play youtube episode “The Front Bench on controversial comments from MP on gay marriage.” From Viersen’s viewpoint granting this interview must look like a total disaster. He was surely hoping it would give his bill related to protecting victims of the porn industry some welcome publicity. It would seem that CTV News completely ignored this and instead focused on embarrassing the Conservatives, stoking irrational fears that a Poilievre government would ban gay marriage. Some of the commenters fault Viersen for being evasive about his views. His real problem seemed to be that he wasn’t nearly firm enough in establishing ground rules for the interview. He should have only agreed to come on the podcast if certain social conservative issues were off the table. Not having done that, when asked about a bill on gay marriage he might have used the standard response that he wouldn’t respond to a hypothetical question, and let’s face it, that particular question is way more hypothetical than most.
I’m not sure why other commenters seemed to have a bee in their bonnet about Viersen using the word “preborn” rather than “unborn”. A pro-life website gives a good explanation of the reasons that a pro-life activist prefers the term “preborn” to “unborn”:
https://www.endthekilling.ca/2015/05/19/the-right-words-un-born-or-pre-born/
You don’t have to agree with their positions to resent trying to bully someone like Viersen into using “unborn” rather than “preborn”. The essay notes : ”’Unborn’ is used in the title of six films, most of the horror genre.” In fact, if you search the term “unborn” on IMDB.com the first title that comes up is the 2009 horror film “The Unborn” starring Odette Yustman and Gary Oldman. For “woman’s right to choose” fanatics, these unpleasant associations of the word “unborn” are probably seen as a feature; for pro-lifers they are a bug.