The Nutzis are back!

Bullies use peanut butter to threaten kids with allergies

Ok, ok. Let’s get the obvious stuff out of the way first. Kids get bullied and beaten up all the time, and maybe it’s more dangerous (it’s certainly more comical) to threaten a kid with a peanut butter sandwich. It’s also really dangerous to throw rocks at kids, too. So, if you’re reading this, kids, don’t throw rocks or peanut butter sandwiches at other children. It’s wrong.

But people, you are hysterical! From the comments of the article:

Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: This kind of bullying should merit the same reaction as bullying by pointing a loaded gun.

John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: This gives credence to retroactive abortion.

Dear God. Is this for real? Let’s retro-abort the healthy 7-year old who smeared the weaker 7-year old with peanut butter. Let’s throw him in jail, because his behavior is akin to waving a gun around.

This is exactly the kind of hysterical behavior that marginalizes kids with “special issues”. You know what else causes deadly anaphylaxis? Bee stings. My school yard had an apple tree in it. Apple trees attract bees. Should that tree have been cut down because some kid in the school had an allergy? (let’s completely set aside the bullies who would whip apples at the girls, leaving us bruised and often bleeding - ban apples!!)

I asked a military friend of mine, “Does the Army allow people with peanut allergies to sign up?”

“Yeah.” (Army guys aren’t very wordy)

“So, how do they keep from getting sick?”

“They don’t eat peanuts.”

Made sense to me!

Look, every parent wants school to be a safe place for their kids. But any parent with a shred of memory should know that the schoolyard is inherently dangerous, because it’s filled with other people’s children! They fight - sometimes arms and teeth even get broken. They have food fights. They pick on the weaker kids to make themselves feel better. Nobody gets out of school without scars - be they emotional or physical.

But to liken a bully with a sandwich, who might kill one kid with a designer allergy, to a psycho with a gun who could shoot up his entire class - as has happened on too many occasion in the last few years - is irresponsible, ridiculous, callous, and hysterical.

So they finally admitted it. The Canadian Human Rights Commission finally admitted what they are really about: Censorship.

And, he says, when he had a conversation with a Commission employee, mediator Bob Fagan, about the specifics of the allegation, he was astonished at what he heard.
“I told him that it seemed to be an abuse of the Human Rights Act for someone to try and use it as an instrument of censorship. And when I said that, on the phone, there was a pause and then he said, in a somewhat astonished tone: ‘But the Human Rights Act is about censorship’. Then it was my turn to be silent on my end, because I found that breath-taking. For the Human Rights Commission’s own mediator to acknowledge that censorship was the purpose of their Act.”

From the horse’s mouth. So can we now, in good conscience, allow it to continue? We’ve basically been told that - like under communist regimes - our speech and opinions are being silenced to the whims of political correctness.

Kathy wrote about this issue yesterday:

I hope Emmanuel isn’t counting on getting support from the cowardly, careerist “conservative” male bloggers in this nation, who time and again have revealed themselves to be more interested in watching Family Guy than fighting for what’s right.

It’s true. The likes of the Blogging Tories and their ilk are more interested in preparing graphs and poll numbers, visions of party wonk jobs dancing in their uninspired heads, to bother to stand up and shout for the very things the party is supposed to represent.

Kathy, Kate and I can be out there shouting like Canadian Coulters, drawing attention to issues that affect us all and getting people talking, and all the while the men write us off as “too controversial” and kick us out of their clubhouses. When one of us gets a death threat, we only have each other to depend on - Stephen Taylor et al are too busy agreeing with those who seek to silence us, so that maybe they’ll be seen as progressive enough score a policy job.

To be clear, we don’t expect every conservative in Canada to agree with us - heck, we don’t even agree with each other half the time - but when we’re out there stirring up the bigger issues that affect not only this country but civilization as we know it, we would very much appreciate it if you would quit slagging dead-horse Stephane Dion long enough to defend our right to say the things we’re saying, instead of just knee-jerking us in the balls you are oh so jealous we possess.

Shut up. Really. These nut allergy people are so banal with their Nazi Nut Hatred and their anaphylactic fear of the old fashioned PB&J. Now they’re after your cookies…

Bella Cucina’s Death by Chocolate cookies contain walnuts, which are not declared on the label and could be hazardous to anyone with nut allergies.

Hide your children! Get to the bomb shelters! Somewhere out there are cookies that aren’t wearing their big yellow star… oops, I mean, their allergy label.

These designer kids with their designer allergies need to grow a pair. Yes, of nuts. You know what gives me anaphylaxis? Eggplant. You know why? Because it’s from the Deadly Nightshade family - so there’s a pretty good reason right there not to eat it. But I have. Sometimes it just shows up in food, and since I’m not one of those people who goes screeching into restaurants howling about how fucking fragile I am, I usually don’t think to ask ahead if a certain dish contains it. So I suck it up, drink a couple of cups of strong espresso to reopen the ol’ windpipe, and get the fuck on with it. I’ll die when it’s my time to die. And if you’re so thin-skinned that a peanut will kill you, then your time to die was in the womb. It is merely a credit to science that you’ve remained with us for so long. So long.