As a religious person, I find this ruling troubling.
We bend over backward for religious dietary restrictions.
Why not sincerely held secular dietary restrictions and convictions? I also suspect the ruling would have been deliberated more if this wasn't an Australian inmate requesting Australian foods.
What is a 'secular dietary conviction'? Religious restrictions are 'God says it is morally wrong to consume this'. Are you suggesting that australian culture suggests 'it is morally wrong to not eat vegemite'? I don't think that's true.
Because if it's just 'australian people like to eat X, I'm australian, thus it's morally wrong to deny me 'X', I don't see how that's reasonable. It's also a strong australian cultural norm to not be confined to a small cell every day for the rest of your life, but that norm was knowingly taken away as part this inmates' conviction and sentencing. Surely eating vegemite is a much smaller concern compared to the imprisonment.
Religion is culture. If you doubt that, go to country X and ask them about god(s) then go to every other country and ask the same. Even if one of them got it right and is following the word of god, it would still mean every other country has got it wrong, and _theirs_ is just culture.
Now, if we bend for one cultural norm, why not another? I'd say it's not that his culture shouldn't be treated like religion, it should! It's just that religion shouldn't be treated specially in the first place.
This argument appears to me unjustified. This equating between culture and religion seems especially unworkable in modern times, where cultural groups don't have single religions at all. Eg in america there is in my opinion a single shared american culture, shared across people of different religions. If we were to equate these two things, does that imply that there is no shared american culture? I just don't see how this interpretation doesn't lead to a single stretched 'culture' term which basically ends up subsuming everything about people, and don't see how it is a useful term or how it aids in thought or understanding.
In this case, the point really isn't 'culture' vs 'religion' it's 'moral' vs 'preference'. Consuming vegemite is not a moral mandate for anyone, it's just a preference, like mayonnaise, fashion, or coke.
My argument is that a religion _is in itself_ a cultural group. Religion is culture, it's just that we have given it special status because people take it (much) more seriously than any other culture.
> does that imply that there is no shared american culture?
I think you might've convinced me of this just with your comment.
Also, flip "religion" and "culture" and the post still (mostly) works, though I don't think that proves anything.
The moral/preference idea is closer, but you get a lot of gray areas like sports teams and Sunday roasts (complete with threat of excommunication for non-adherence).
Buddhism as actually practiced for the last 2500 years ascribes all kinds of deity-like features and the supernatural to the Buddha – travel Asia and you’ll see people praying to Amitabha Buddha in order to be reborn in his Pure Land, and even Theravada Buddhism that doesn't go whole hog with pantheons still holds that the Buddha was divinely immune to fire, poison, and drowning. A non-supernatural Buddha is largely a feature of the twentieth-century West, which thought it could get something in tune with a more rational era by reviving, so it thought, “original Buddhism” with questionable results. Even non-revival, supernaturally charged strands of Buddhism have their converts in the West.
Sure, and there are followers of Christ who also do all the things he said not to (Catholics). I don't take a religion's followers as good examples of the founders intents.
The intent of Buddhism's founder is ultimately unknowable. The earliest source we have, the Pali canon, already contains the supernatural and the mythological. It cannot be emphasized enough just how modern attempts to reconstruct the "original" Buddhism are, and they are simply unfalsifiable.
But strangely, if enough people said they believed in the Great Salty Kangaroo, and part of their belief was a ritual consumption of vegemite every Tuesday - the request would have been granted.
I think that prisoners should be fed normal food which makes them feel comfortable. I'm not saying that it needs to be luxury meals, but there isn't a good reason for prisons in a free country to feed their prisoners bad food.
Sincerely held secular beliefs are protected in many jurisdictions (and should be in all). Vegans have been fighting for this issue a lot, because it is an ethical principle, held as deeply, if not more, than most religions but not religious in nature (the less charitable way to put it is the ethics are based on reality instead of fictional stories. In a sensible world it would clearly receive more support from the legal system than religious beliefs…).
This seems a little different. This seems more about “enjoyment” as opposed to a sincerely held belief.
Some places also respect that. Famously, the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people demanded, and received, a PlayStation 3. And if this jurisdiction had similar laws as Norway they probably would have provided vegemite.
I’m inclined to agree with your initial statement but have difficulty in determining what is the standard for a sincerely held belief. That seems like a very grey area and thus subject to abuse and capriciousness.
Note that U.S. law is less progressive on this than many European nations.
Also, it’s called a sincerely held “religious” belief but it doesn’t need to be religious at all. It does lead to bad news headlines when a certain ethical belief passes the threshold in a court of law that amount to “XYZ is a religion”.
Which is a pretty weird claim because there’s no nutrient that only occurs in port and vegemite. Or what are all the Muslims around the world eating to not be deficient? Surely not vegemite, right? But he also dropped that argument later…
I'm surprised there's no possible options to provide a "secure" Vegemite sandwich or otherwise.
They do make single-serving portions, so I don't see why it couldn't be securely acquired from a supplier and doled out single-packet-by-packet and ensuring they've actually ate the Vegemite?
The judge upheld prison authorities’ argument that McKechnie had failed to provide any proper foundations for his opinion that Vegemite does not interfere with drug sniffer dogs.
What is the null-hypothesis, who is making a claim, who has the burden of proof?
When I first heard about the case, I assumed prisoner was suing because he was being forced to accept toast with vegemite already on it or something, but turns out it was the opposite lol
Two slices of bread in the toaster oven. Throw some sharp cheddar on one of them halfway through. Spread a thin layer of *mite on the other. Delicious. I threw some carmelized onions on there one time too and it was even better.
The *mite hate comes from people trying to spread it like Nutella because they think brown = chocolate. One must apply it like sunscreen or thermal paste. My last jar of Vegemite similarly glued itself irretrievably shut towards the end even with a quarter of its contents left. I treated it as a metaphor for existence and discarded it with spiritual indifference.
I have pulled such a prank on a person at least once, yes.
Ok, so this appears to be a surströmming type of situation - people (including me) trying to eat it straight from the jar/can and being surprised by the foul taste and smell, whereas to those who grew up with it it's like eating mayonnaise straight from the jar - not illegal, just weird.
I've reopened mine twice already, but each such instance increases the rate at which, for lack of a better expression, coagulates.
Yup, I was in a youth hostel while backpacking down the east coast of Australia and decided to try it. I found if you spread a cracker with a thick layer of butter then a molecular thin layer of vegemite it came quite close to process cheese. Though that was the first and last time I tried the stuff...
“ Vegemite had been banned throughout the state’s 12 prisons for the past 20 years because it could potentially impair sniffer dogs’ ability to detect narcotics and could be used to brew alcohol because of its yeast content”
Well yes, but you can brew alcohol out of almost anything.
Also, everything “potentially” impairs sniffers dogs ability. Including attention. The question is, does it actually?
You do need yeast though, right? Even if it's just naturally present e.g. as on the skin of grapes or other berries. Though I'm sure there are probably ways to extract yeast from other foods, like bread.
Yeast is omnipresent, you can brew or brake bread with the yeast on your skin (as seen here [1]). The other part is getting a container and sugars to ferment, see /r/prisonhooch [2] for some creative and horrifying concoctions.
I recently saw in a documentation, that jam was banned from german prison(s?) because you can use it for making alcohol. So might not be the first product which got banned because of this.
From the article it's not clear if the problem with the drug-sniffing dogs is false-positives or false-negatives. So don't start hiding your drugs in vegemite just yet.
This article deserves its own headline: Murderer’s bid to eat Vegemite in Australian prison rejected by judge
And the court actually found Vegemite to be a cultural right, just not important enough of a right to overrule the prison system, so there's the problem with the headline.
As a religious person, I find this ruling troubling.
We bend over backward for religious dietary restrictions.
Why not sincerely held secular dietary restrictions and convictions? I also suspect the ruling would have been deliberated more if this wasn't an Australian inmate requesting Australian foods.
What is a 'secular dietary conviction'? Religious restrictions are 'God says it is morally wrong to consume this'. Are you suggesting that australian culture suggests 'it is morally wrong to not eat vegemite'? I don't think that's true.
Because if it's just 'australian people like to eat X, I'm australian, thus it's morally wrong to deny me 'X', I don't see how that's reasonable. It's also a strong australian cultural norm to not be confined to a small cell every day for the rest of your life, but that norm was knowingly taken away as part this inmates' conviction and sentencing. Surely eating vegemite is a much smaller concern compared to the imprisonment.
Thought about the other way around:
Religion is culture. If you doubt that, go to country X and ask them about god(s) then go to every other country and ask the same. Even if one of them got it right and is following the word of god, it would still mean every other country has got it wrong, and _theirs_ is just culture.
Now, if we bend for one cultural norm, why not another? I'd say it's not that his culture shouldn't be treated like religion, it should! It's just that religion shouldn't be treated specially in the first place.
'Religion is culture...'
This argument appears to me unjustified. This equating between culture and religion seems especially unworkable in modern times, where cultural groups don't have single religions at all. Eg in america there is in my opinion a single shared american culture, shared across people of different religions. If we were to equate these two things, does that imply that there is no shared american culture? I just don't see how this interpretation doesn't lead to a single stretched 'culture' term which basically ends up subsuming everything about people, and don't see how it is a useful term or how it aids in thought or understanding.
In this case, the point really isn't 'culture' vs 'religion' it's 'moral' vs 'preference'. Consuming vegemite is not a moral mandate for anyone, it's just a preference, like mayonnaise, fashion, or coke.
My argument is that a religion _is in itself_ a cultural group. Religion is culture, it's just that we have given it special status because people take it (much) more seriously than any other culture.
> does that imply that there is no shared american culture?
I think you might've convinced me of this just with your comment.
Also, flip "religion" and "culture" and the post still (mostly) works, though I don't think that proves anything.
The moral/preference idea is closer, but you get a lot of gray areas like sports teams and Sunday roasts (complete with threat of excommunication for non-adherence).
Right, which is why the distinction exists between religion and moral preference. One invokes a supernatural higher power, while the other does not.
In the US, we often make an exception for the former but not the latter. Sometimes we do both.
For example there is a conscientious objector exemption from the military draft.
Is Buddhism a religion? There's no supernatural higher power there?
Buddhism is actually a great example, because it shows how one can choose their religion just as they can their cultural preferences.
Buddhism as actually practiced for the last 2500 years ascribes all kinds of deity-like features and the supernatural to the Buddha – travel Asia and you’ll see people praying to Amitabha Buddha in order to be reborn in his Pure Land, and even Theravada Buddhism that doesn't go whole hog with pantheons still holds that the Buddha was divinely immune to fire, poison, and drowning. A non-supernatural Buddha is largely a feature of the twentieth-century West, which thought it could get something in tune with a more rational era by reviving, so it thought, “original Buddhism” with questionable results. Even non-revival, supernaturally charged strands of Buddhism have their converts in the West.
Sure, and there are followers of Christ who also do all the things he said not to (Catholics). I don't take a religion's followers as good examples of the founders intents.
The intent of Buddhism's founder is ultimately unknowable. The earliest source we have, the Pali canon, already contains the supernatural and the mythological. It cannot be emphasized enough just how modern attempts to reconstruct the "original" Buddhism are, and they are simply unfalsifiable.
Yes? I dont think anyone disputing that religion can be chosen? How is this relevant?
> One invokes a supernatural higher power
Like the flying spaghetti monster?
If someone actually believed it, sure.
> in america there is in my opinion a single shared american culture, shared across people of different religions
Describe that single culture.
“Fuck you, I got mine and I’ll step on your neck to keep it.”
[dead]
But strangely, if enough people said they believed in the Great Salty Kangaroo, and part of their belief was a ritual consumption of vegemite every Tuesday - the request would have been granted.
I think that prisoners should be fed normal food which makes them feel comfortable. I'm not saying that it needs to be luxury meals, but there isn't a good reason for prisons in a free country to feed their prisoners bad food.
It's Vegemite, FFS. Not caviar.
The explanation is that Vegemite's characteristics (high yeast content, viscosity and strong smell) can be abused to break other jail prohibitions.
The yeast could be used to brew alcohol, and the viscosity and strong smell could be used to hide drugs and misdirect sniffer dogs.
You can brew alcohol with atmospheric yeast, yeast on the surface of fruits, etc., and you could just as easily hide drugs in toothpaste.
That might be their explanation but IMO it doesn't make sense.
Sincerely held secular beliefs are protected in many jurisdictions (and should be in all). Vegans have been fighting for this issue a lot, because it is an ethical principle, held as deeply, if not more, than most religions but not religious in nature (the less charitable way to put it is the ethics are based on reality instead of fictional stories. In a sensible world it would clearly receive more support from the legal system than religious beliefs…).
This seems a little different. This seems more about “enjoyment” as opposed to a sincerely held belief.
Some places also respect that. Famously, the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people demanded, and received, a PlayStation 3. And if this jurisdiction had similar laws as Norway they probably would have provided vegemite.
I’m inclined to agree with your initial statement but have difficulty in determining what is the standard for a sincerely held belief. That seems like a very grey area and thus subject to abuse and capriciousness.
https://uslawexplained.com/sincerely_held_religious_belief
Note that U.S. law is less progressive on this than many European nations.
Also, it’s called a sincerely held “religious” belief but it doesn’t need to be religious at all. It does lead to bad news headlines when a certain ethical belief passes the threshold in a court of law that amount to “XYZ is a religion”.
He claims this is actually due to religion. He needs the nutrition, and the only alternative is pork, which he can't eat due to his religion.
Which is a pretty weird claim because there’s no nutrient that only occurs in port and vegemite. Or what are all the Muslims around the world eating to not be deficient? Surely not vegemite, right? But he also dropped that argument later…
> McKechnie dropped the thiamine issue as “not important,” after lawyers for the prison authorities objected to his evidence.
Or you know, a multivitamin
I'm surprised there's no possible options to provide a "secure" Vegemite sandwich or otherwise.
They do make single-serving portions, so I don't see why it couldn't be securely acquired from a supplier and doled out single-packet-by-packet and ensuring they've actually ate the Vegemite?
[dead]
They’ve not asked for a burden of proof standard.
They’ve asked for “proper foundations”.
When I first heard about the case, I assumed prisoner was suing because he was being forced to accept toast with vegemite already on it or something, but turns out it was the opposite lol
Was going to say the same. I acquired a taste for it, but you really have to spread it thinly.
Also the jar lid can and will get stuck on dried Vegemite, so at the same time you have to open it frequently, so as to prevent that.
Two slices of bread in the toaster oven. Throw some sharp cheddar on one of them halfway through. Spread a thin layer of *mite on the other. Delicious. I threw some carmelized onions on there one time too and it was even better.
The *mite hate comes from people trying to spread it like Nutella because they think brown = chocolate. One must apply it like sunscreen or thermal paste. My last jar of Vegemite similarly glued itself irretrievably shut towards the end even with a quarter of its contents left. I treated it as a metaphor for existence and discarded it with spiritual indifference.
> Nutella because they think brown = chocolate.
I have pulled such a prank on a person at least once, yes.
Ok, so this appears to be a surströmming type of situation - people (including me) trying to eat it straight from the jar/can and being surprised by the foul taste and smell, whereas to those who grew up with it it's like eating mayonnaise straight from the jar - not illegal, just weird.
I've reopened mine twice already, but each such instance increases the rate at which, for lack of a better expression, coagulates.
https://www.technewstoday.com/best-pattern-to-apply-thermal-...
I’m sure some will try using vegemite as thermal paste…
Yup, I was in a youth hostel while backpacking down the east coast of Australia and decided to try it. I found if you spread a cracker with a thick layer of butter then a molecular thin layer of vegemite it came quite close to process cheese. Though that was the first and last time I tried the stuff...
And as further punishment they will now be supplying toast with Marmite.
> As a Jew who observed kosher law
> serving a life sentence for murder
Well which is it?
To be fair, there is precedent for God commanding things that would lead to a murder conviction in modern times. See e.g. the Amalekite massacre.
“ Vegemite had been banned throughout the state’s 12 prisons for the past 20 years because it could potentially impair sniffer dogs’ ability to detect narcotics and could be used to brew alcohol because of its yeast content”
Well yes, but you can brew alcohol out of almost anything.
Also, everything “potentially” impairs sniffers dogs ability. Including attention. The question is, does it actually?
> you can brew alcohol out of almost anything
You do need yeast though, right? Even if it's just naturally present e.g. as on the skin of grapes or other berries. Though I'm sure there are probably ways to extract yeast from other foods, like bread.
Yeast is omnipresent, you can brew or brake bread with the yeast on your skin (as seen here [1]). The other part is getting a container and sugars to ferment, see /r/prisonhooch [2] for some creative and horrifying concoctions.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvrJu9dLmtA
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/prisonhooch/
I recently saw in a documentation, that jam was banned from german prison(s?) because you can use it for making alcohol. So might not be the first product which got banned because of this.
Do they ban all sugar, or just any sugars that could contain yeast?
[dead]
> Vegemite is typically considered an acquired taste at best by those who weren’t raised on it.
+1
That's cause you're on Team Marmite instead, eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite
Marmite would also be banned if it's because it throws off the sniffer dogs
I prefer Marmite for its consistency. Marmite is sticky and goopy, Vegemite is kinda waxy.
I've never set foot in either Europe or Australia, but I liked both Marmite and Vegemite the first time I tried them.
I had the privileged to sample both at a friends house and both were ... uh, interesting on buttered bread.
Haha, no, my +1 was not because I agree with the statement, I just appreciated the wording.
I loved it the first time I had it. On the other hand I also loved durian the first time I had it too.
> taste for the spread strongly correlates with early exposure and to Australian birth and ancestry
i guess this is the most aussie thing about me. i lost my accent ages ago but i still crave a vegemite sandwich from time to time.
Why the move overseas?
The part that puzzles me is where he states that he'd been let out on parole (where presumably he could access Vegemite) but didn't like it and chose to go back into custody: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-26/vic-vegemite-prison-c...
From the article it's not clear if the problem with the drug-sniffing dogs is false-positives or false-negatives. So don't start hiding your drugs in vegemite just yet.
This goes against the vibe of the constitution.
This article deserves its own headline: Murderer’s bid to eat Vegemite in Australian prison rejected by judge
And the court actually found Vegemite to be a cultural right, just not important enough of a right to overrule the prison system, so there's the problem with the headline.
Vegemite is more like a human rights violation.
[dead]
[dead]
Vegemite? Is that like shit Marmite?
You have been banned from Australia