Swimming To Survive Appeal To Emotion

Well, at least this:

"The decision comes as Quebec experiences a spike in drownings this year, that is prompting calls for mandatory water safety education for children.

"Swim to survive" will initially roll out on a voluntary basis at first, according to Education Minister Michelle Courchesne."

I appreciate the government offering it on a voluntary basis. This suggests to me they recognize the short comings of making it mandatory - for now.

It's especially appreciated considering the Liberals didn't campaign on this issue.

Personally, as important it is for kids to learn to swim, it usually has fallen under the family to take care of such things.

I also wonder about the relevance of this. Most of the deaths occur with kids under five years-old. It has more to do with lack of vigilance in terms of watching over children than anything. I'm not so sure you can fix this by legislation. Moreover, I'd like to see more statistics. The CBC's table is pathetic and incomplete. Numbers with no proper context.

For example, what's the ratio of deaths to the actual number of swimming pools in Quebec? To the size of the population? Yes, in brut numbers 80 kids in a season is a lot but we are 7.5 million people in the province.

I understand people will use the "at any cost for our kids" logic but I'm a citizen that's less inclined to be swayed by emotional tags like "swim to survive."

Then there's the whole "making arrangements" logistical problem. That's the first thing my wife - a school teacher - said. While it's good on one side, this means organized public outings and that's always a stress. Schools, who are already under duress with limited resources, will have to find time to fit this into an already packed curriculum.

Not to mention the possibility of taking the kids swimming in the dead of winter. That's a concern for some parents. I know it is for us.

We teach our child to swim. We take her to private lessons and we do it at our pace. More importantly, her pace. Forcing a person into the pool - no matter how important - is simply not a good idea. Millions of people don't know how to swim - and survive.

Once again, I fear emotions are getting the best of rational thought.

***

Heard a caller on the radio say on this subject "people forget that it's the government's job to regulate."

Of course, he didn't expand on what exactly he meant by this. It's their job to regulate what? Anything?

Where is the line drawn I wondered?

Gee. All this university education didn't once mention the notion that the stated purpose of a government is to regulate. To represent the people, uphold the rule of law, maintain law & order (by force), and preserve general peace and prosperity etc. I learned. But I don't recall any great political thinker suggesting an open-ended option to "regulate."

Then was the beaut I heard New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg pulled on Charlie Rose when he said, and I paraphrase, "of course it is the government's job to regulate health since we have access to better scientific research."

Bunch of paternalistic baloney.

Rather than entertain such gibberish I will just say that in my experience with the government regarding health and safety, they don't always have empirical evidence backing them up. A lot of it is plain made up out of thin air.