Tammy Robert's Blog

It's not much more than last week, but here's what I know today on the convicted child sex offender/murderer Harold David Smeltzer who is about to be released into the community of Regina on day parole (see www.kimmieslaw.com for more info).

A quick refresher - the Regina Police Service have applied to the Saskatchewan Government's Public Disclosure Committee (PDC) for approval to release Smeltzer's information to the public - a current photo, physical description and the Regina neighbourhood he'll be living in.

Earlier this week Regina Police spokesperson Elizabeth Popowich said the RPS had "been advised that...the (PDC's) hearing of the application will occur prior to the arrival of Mr. Smeltzer." 

The Regina Police know the date that Smeltzer is going to be in Regina, and the Committee's decision will be delivered to the Regina Police before he arrives.  The Public Disclosure Committee is scheduled to meet early next week - the week of November 24th.  It's not difficult to do the math on the ETA.

The National Parole Board would not confirm whether they are holding Smeltzer at the Prince Albert Pen until the decision on public notification has been made, but when we were discussing what needs to happen before he is transferred, the officer said that Smeltzer's paperwork need to be sent to, and bedspace secured at "Oskana".  She seemed to realize what she had said and tried to back up, but she said it clearly.  Perhaps this is nothing new, but in my opinion that might confirm Smeltzer will be living at the Oskana Community Correctional Centre. 

This info corresponds to the line in the Parole Board's November 5th decision on Smeltzer that says Smeltzer plans on residing at a "Community Correctional Centre" (the name of the facility is blacked out in the report).  "The ______ Community Correctional Centre does not believe you (Smeltzer) are a suitable candidate but will accept you if directed to do so."

Corrections Canada offers the following background on Oksana:

"The Oksana Centre offers its residents a wide range of rehabilitation programs aimed at treating problems that interfere with the ability to function in society...By assisting offenders to live law-abiding lives in the community, the criminal justice system is contributing to public safety."

So this community facility that is seemingly specifically designed to support someone like Smeltzer - does not want to support him. 

Encouraging, isn't it. 

Tammy Robert is the Executive Producer of 'The John Gormley Live Show' - listen live every weekday morning from 8.30am - 12.30pm on NewsTalk 650 or NewsTalk 980.

Nutana Collegiate's Shirley Figley likely wouldn't agree with me.  The Saskatoon high school principal is thinking about kicking off 2009 by no longer giving students failing grades.  Figley says that "failing marks do not encourage students...the (failing grade) could be accomplished with a term like 'incomplete' or 'no mark'.  We don't need to degrade the student by giving them a number."

Nutana is essentially 'the place to go' for at-risk-kids: those under court orders or probation requirements to attend school, who have failed out of other programs or who may just not fit in at 'mainstream' high schools.  The school implements a quarterly semester system - meaning if you are a nursing student who needs a better Grade 12 biology grade to get into University, you can get it in about two months - making Nutana a popular choice for upgrading or returning students.

I'll let you in on a little secret - I graduated from Nutana.  I sailed through elementary school but for many reasons high school didn't really...er, agree with me.  Trust me, I gave more than a few schools a try - whether or not by choice.  Finally a guidance counsellor suggested Nutana, and I went - immediately starting the same sh*t I had pulled at every other high school - skipping school, not handing in assignments, getting stoned and being a jackass.

Something very different happened at Nutana.  Almost immediately the principal at the time (not Figley but I can't remember his name, argh) hauled me into his office and ripped into me like I had never been ripped into before.  He told me he had called my mom, who cried and told him that she didn't know what my problem was.  Then he told me under no uncertain terms that I had a week to get my ass back to school - everyday - get caught up on my assignments and pull up my grades, or I was out the door.  We went over my marks and I learned - without any glossy sugar-coating - just how badly I was failing.  Yes, to the very last degrading number.

You know where this is going.  I smartened up, started attending - it's amazing how when you do that, you also start handing in your assignments! - and graduated without any further major issues. 

I know it's not this simple for every student.  Nor am I suggesting it could be or should be.  But I was 'that kid', and I needed to hear that I was accountable.  Once I started putting in the effort, there were more than enough resources available to assist me in getting back on track, and keep me there.  I promise you though - if the school had allowed me not only to continue to fail, but then glossed it over so it didn't feel as bad - I would probably STILL be there. 

Anyway, I hope Shirley Figley makes the right decision, whatever it is.  To the Nutana Collegiate Principal circa 1996 - thank you, thank you, thank you.

Tammy Robert is the Executive Producer of 'The John Gormley Live Show' - listen live every weekday morning from 8.30am - 12.30pm on NewsTalk 650 or NewsTalk 980.

A quick update on Harold David Smeltzer - the child sex offender who raped little girls - murdering one of them - and is now about to be released on day parole into the community of Regina.

I want to say from the outset that my point is not to promote 'citizen justice'.  I simply feel that Harold Smeltzer does not deserve to enjoy freedom ever again - regardless of how well-behaved he decided to be after he got caught.  (See www.kimmieslaw.com for more information on Smeltzer.)

But it doesn't matter what I want, because he is going to be free very soon.  We need to do everything we can do to protect our children which means being constanly vigilant.  The stakes are too precious to 'hope' that Smeltzer can control himself.  Being informed is key, so here's what I know...

First and most importantly - as of this morning Smeltzer is not yet in Regina. 

The Regina Police Service have applied to the Saskatchewan Government's Public Disclosure Committee (PDC) for approval to release Smeltzer's information to the public - a current photo, physical description and the Regina neighbourhood he'll be living in.

The Ministry of Corrections, Public Safety and Policing are responsible for this committe.  The PDC is required to meet once a month, but can organize expedited meetings within 2 - 3 days.  

The Regina Police Service can disclose the current info on Smeltzer without the PDC's approval - but if they wait for it they cannot be sued if anything 'happens' to Smeltzer.

The Regina Police Service feel that since Smeltzer has not yet arrived in the Regina community, they have the time to go through the PDC process to minimize risk to their organization.  However, if the Committee rejects their application, and they still feel strongly that Smeltzer poses a high risk to the community, the Regina Police can and will release the info.

When will the Regina Police Service have their answer?  Only the Public Disclosure Committee knows - RPS confirmed they do not have a deadline for a response, and the Committee confirmed that they are not going to provide one.

As Gormley pointed out this morning, prisoner transfers of this nature can take anywhere from 1 - 3 weeks.  The Smeltzer decision came down one week ago today, so the clock is ticking.  The responsibility lies with the provincial government - specifically Corrections, Public Safety and Pollicing to make sure this meeting takes place fast (all the contact details you need for that Ministry here -  http://www.gov.sk.ca/ministries-list/ ) and we get the answer our kids deserve.

Tammy Robert is the Executive Producer of 'The John Gormley Live Show' - listen live every weekday morning from 8.30am - 12.30pm on NewsTalk 650 or NewsTalk 980.

I never see Gormley as visibly angry as when we are talking about child sex offenders on the show.

A few weeks ago we discussed Danial Gratton, the child sex-offender who was arrested in October for the abduction and sexual assaults of two Edmonton girls - ages 7 and 10 - in the span of just a few days.  Gratton is a serial pedophile who was declared a long-term offender and sent to prison for molesting six children - one child at least 70 times in six months.  He was on parole for these offences when he allegedly kidnapped the two Edmonton girls by luring each of them with the promise of kittens, then drugging, sexually assaulting and threatening to kill them before letting them go.

The public wasn't warned of the fact that Gratton was free and wandering in the midst of their children because high-ranking law enforcement officials decided he wasn't a "high risk".  He was "on parole" and "in treatment".  Clearly that worked out well.

Then there is Peter Whitmore.

Two summers ago Whitmore snatched a ten year old Saskatchewan boy and subjected him to unthinkable physical, sexual and emotional abuse in an abandoned, filthy farmhouse not far from the boy's home. 

Whitmore was convicted in Ontario in 1993 of abduction and sexual offences involving four boys, he served sixteen months for that one.  Within days after his release, he took an eight-year-old girl...he received a 56-month sentence for a sex offence involving her.

Not long after that, after bouncing around from province to province and violating a probation order along the way, Whitmore ended up in Saskatchewan with one child in tow, and we know the rest of the story (which incidently has now been written by criminal justice reporter Mike McIntyre - he'll be on Gormley Friday to discuss his new book.)

Two men...15 children victimized (that we know of)...and the blame for destroying of at least five of these kids lives lays squarely at the feet of the bureaucrats who set these men free to prey upon our children.  Over and over and over again.

Today this type of story is hitting close to home as Harold David Smeltzer was granted day parole yesterday to be served at a halfway house in Regina.  Smeltzer has been serving a life sentence for the murder and rapes of young Calgary girls in the early 1980's.  First he kidnapped 5-year old Kimmie Thompson, taking her back to his mom's house and stripping her out of her snowsuit so he could "kiss her" as she cried out for her mom.  Smeltzer got scared, but instead of letting Kimmie go, he poured her a drink of water, drew a bath and placed her in the tub, holding her head under the water until she died.  Then, he put her dead body in a garbage bag and stuffed it in a can in the alley.  Smeltzer never came forward and turned himself in, instead he went on a sex spree and was busted after raping two elementary school girls at knife-point, five months after killing Kimmie.

Within a matter of days Harvey Smeltzer will be standing behind us at the grocery store, walking through our parks or sitting beside us in the restaurant.  The same Harvey Smeltzer who admitted yesterday - not a year ago or ten years ago - but yesterday, when asked if he considers himself a pedophile - "Yes I do. I'm attracted to little girls."  The same Harvey Smeltzer who admitted to having to fight his urges after watching five whole minutes of 'Degrassi Junior High' on television. 

Don't panic though, Smeltzer's got a plan to stay straight.  "When I leave the institution, I plan my day and the first thing I tell myself is 'I am a sex offender, I am a pedophile.' Basically, that's how I prepare my day."  Oh, well then, thank God for that rock-solid strategy. 

Rock-solid enough, I guess, for parole board officials to agree with him that "although he is a pedophile and violent sexual offender, he poses no risk to children".

Can someone please explain how that one works? 

I'm so tired of the rights and freedoms of these freaks taking priority over the safety of our kids.  Why should my or your daughter or son be the next victim ?  Why are lawmakers, decision-makers and law enforcement officers gambling with our children?  And why are we allowing them to?

As so many callers put it on JGL this morning - no more 'strikes', no more chances.  One child-sex offence and your done, locked up for good. 

Don't we owe at least that to our kids, nevermind to the kids who have already been let down?  What about Kimmie Thompson, who was simply never given the chance to feel anything?

Tammy Robert is the Executive Producer of 'The John Gormley Live Show' - listen live every weekday morning from 8.30am - 12.30pm on NewsTalk 650 or NewsTalk 980.

There's a fashion movement in the office today - Barack Obama T-shirts.   And I'm talking about young people.  Very young people, like under-twenty young people.

On Facebook, I'm bombarded with my friend's pro-Obama Facebook status updates: 'Jane hopes everyone 'Ba-ROCKS' the vote today'.  'Adam wants Americans to get it right this year - VOTE OBAMA!' or 'Renee isn't worried, Mr. Obama will take it in a landslide'.

See a trend here?  I think that's the key word - 'trend'.

Always a bit cynical, I tested a couple of my friends.  "Why vote Obama?" I asked one of my West coast cousins.  "Because I don't like George Bush", she replied.  So in other words, she watches Saturday Night Live.  I asked another twenty-something roadie here at the station sporting an Obama shirt why he'd choose Obama over McCain, and he replied that Obama had better policies.  "Name one," I asked him in response.  The poor kid turned red and started giggling before he was helped out by his older colleague who said that McCain was "like George Bush". 

Anyone who thinks that pop culture, that Obama being portrayed as a "rock star" isn't relevant - well, I think it may have just played a major role in possibly electing the next U.S. President.  If it doesnt, then why did Sarah Palin and John McCain both see fit to make the time during their campaigns to respond to SNL's attacks by appearing on the show more than once?  To appear 'cool', that's why.  SNL was making them so brutally 'uncool' that they were left with little choice. 

As the Republican's popularity continued to plummet to new depths, the trend towards all things Obama continued to rise - which would be fine if it was thanks to informed choices.  My suspicion, however, is that my cousin and my colleague are not alone in their 'reasons' for hopping on the Obamania Bandwagon.  Namely, they don't have a reason, other than that its trendy. 

One wonders if Saturday Night Live has been right all along...that this is what it all boils down to after all - badly written satire.

What saddens me the most is not who wins or loses the American election, but that all these Canadians who became so enraptured by it, particularly the younger generations, likely paid little to no attention to the election that just went down weeks ago in their own backyard.  So do we need to up the political cool quotient, or quit dumbing it down?

Tammy Robert is the Executive Producer of 'The John Gormley Live Show' - listen live every weekday morning from 8.30am - 12.30pm on NewsTalk 650 or NewsTalk 980.

Another round of Tammy vs. John on Gormley this morning, and another resounding loss for Tammy.  (Believe it or not, I know losing is my only option when I go into those segments).

We were discussing the merits of the Sexy Nurse, the Sexy Flight Attendant, the Sexy Baby, the Sexy Construction Worker...you get the picture.  Take any word and place 'Sexy' in front of it and voila - the Halloween costume du jour. 

To quote Lindsay Lohan's character in the movie 'Mean Girls' - "In Girl World, Halloween is the one night a year when a girl can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it....just wear lingerie and some form of animals ears."

So okay, let's be clear from the outset.  WEAR WHAT YOU WANT ON HALLOWEEN NIGHT - I have absolutely no interest in stopping you.  This isn't about prohibiting anyone from doing anything, but maybe it's worth taking a moment to think about why this is the new norm.

During the segment, infamous JGL listener/caller Ken probably summed up my counterpoint the best when he called and pontificated on how "women have been fighting" for the right to wear what they want for "years"...wasn't this what "women's lib" was all about? 

Yes Ken, that's it.  Women everywhere have been fighting for the right to wear a slutty outfit one night a year. 

Yet, Ken's not alone in confusing this kind of sexual power with 'real' power.  Pop culture (ie Britney, Paris, Bratz Dolls, Girlicious) loves to promote this idea that the raunchy, crazy-sexy  woman who just loves taunting and exciting men somehow equals empowerment.  'Girls Gone Wild' anyone?

Yeah, I must be the puritanical prude who doesn't get it.  As some callers suggested, if I don't want to wear zippers, vinyl and fishnets, I guess I don't want to treat myself like a 'Princess for a day', or I must have a self-esteem issue.  (I'm none of these, FYI.  Gormley gleefully pointed out the irony of my black patent leather high-heeled boots - which I love and wear regularly on non-Halloween days, including today.) 

This is definitely a tough subject, it's hard to know what to think.  I mean, if dressing in the 'Sexy' category for Halloween is someone's idea of freedom, choice and empowerment, what right does anyone have to argue with that? 

Writer Erica Jong sums my thoughts up the best - 'The women who buy the idea that flaunting your breasts in sequins is power - I mean, I'm for all that stuff - but let's not get so into the tits and ass that we don't notice how far we haven't come.'

Tammy Robert is the Executive Producer of 'The John Gormley Live Show' - listen live every weekday morning from 8.30am - 12.30pm on NewsTalk 650 or NewsTalk 980.

I'll admit up front that I'm a total hypocrite on this topic. 

I own Lululemon gear, and really do like it.  The quality is fabulous and it makes my ass look pretty good.  (Any help I can get in that department is much appreciated.)

Honestly - the pieces I have were purchased for me as gifts, though I certainly played a role by placing them high on my wish list  (cough<GormleyChristmas>cough). 

Anyway, that's enough in my defense.  Hypocrisy firmly established.

Saskatchewanians are in the delightful position of not necessarily feeling the same impact of the Canadian economic downturn as the rest of the country - perhaps we're not needing to cut back as much as those, say, in the East - where Lululemon stores crop up on as many street corners as Starbucks. 

So when asked how Lululemon planned on weathering a scaled-back profit forecast, one of the board of directors replied that the chain was in a much better position to weather the spending slump than other retailers because "it is selling an accessory to consumers' pursuit of wellness and exercise and yoga".

Seriously?  Is this guy really so out to lunch that he figures the average spender is going to prioritize the 'Boogie Pant' alongside eating?  Or keeping their car another month? 

As long as they can ensure a comfortable Lotus position.

It's either that, or what this economic 'crisis' really means is that the income gap is simply just getting wider, with the upper layer still comfortably able to afford, as this guy added, "goods that contribute to their health and wellness".  Like the Origami Deep V tank - not food or cold medicine or anything frivolous like that.

Thinking about it, we're not immune to this theory in Saskatchewan either, as the recent story on the impossibly overcrowded Saskatoon shelter highlights.

I'm sorry, as much as I love money (even moreso when I have it) and don't begrudge those who have lots of it (because I plan on joining them eventually) - people who make comments like this need a slap.  Companies like Lululemon will continue to make money, but don't insult our intelligence by pretending it will because its a necessity to those who want to stay healthy.

Before I sign off - for those of you who read my previous post on male reproductive rights - Mel Feit, director of the National Centre for Men in New York will be joining John on Wednesday morning (October 30th) at 10am.  It's going to be good.

Tammy Robert is the Executive Producer of 'The John Gormley Live Show' - listen live every weekday morning from 8.30am - 12.30pm on NewsTalk 650 or NewsTalk 980.

The obvious answer in my mind is 'yes', but did you watch Dr Phil yesterday?  Because for some people, it's not so straightforward.

Matt Dubay is a twenty-something IT guy from Michigan who is ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.  He has filed a lawsuit twice (and it's been thrown out twice) addressing the issue of male reproductive rights - essentially arguing that if a pregnant woman has the choice to decline the responsiblity for her child (whether via abortion or adoption), then a man involved in an unintentional pregnancy should also have the choice of declining his responsiblities. 

To date Dubay pays for the kid, but refuses to interact or care for the baby girl, and continues to launch legal and media campaigns to further the issue.  He says he made it very clear to The Ex before having sex that he was not interested in being a father, and she assured him that she not only was she on the birth control pill for medical reasons, she was unable to have kids because of a medical condition.  Hence, the boinking proceeded unhindered and unprotected, then "a few weeks later" The Ex called him and told him she was pregnant.

Mel Feit, director of the National Center for Men (which prepared the lawsuit), is hopefully going to be appearing on Gormley next week. He says that "a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over the subsequent consequences...no one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."

Yesterday's episode of Dr Phil was, as per usual, a train wreck, but a fascinating one nonetheless.  Mel Feit and Matt Dubay squared off against infamous California feminist lawyer Gloria Allred.  Though Feit and Dubay argued their points somewhat convincingly, I couldn't help agreeing with Allred (despite loathing her fingerpointing, shriekingly bad delivery), in that Dubay is not the victim he so wants to be in this situation - the baby is, and he's got to take responsibility for her as a consequence of his choices - whether he made them under false pretences or not.  Biology being what it is and all, if Dubay absolutely, 100% wanted to prevent fatherhood, he could have kept it in his pants - or at least used a condom to minimize the risk even further.  

That being said, I'm certain that readers and listeners will have plenty of diverse opinions on this topic, so watch and listen for the date and time of the segment next week on JGL (right now I'm thinking Tuesday, but will depend on the guests - I'll keep you posted). 

Tammy Robert is the Executive Producer of 'The John Gormley Live Show' - listen live every weekday morning from 8.30am - 12.30pm on NewsTalk 650 or NewsTalk 980.