Prisoner loses challenge to an Australian state’s ban on inmates eating Vegemite

Posted by sumnole 2 days ago

Comments

Comment by zulux 2 days ago

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.

Comment by marky1991 2 days ago

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.

Comment by ghusto 2 days ago

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.

Comment by marky1991 2 days ago

'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.

Comment by ghusto 2 days ago

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.

Comment by Cpoll 2 days ago

> 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).

Comment by s1artibartfast 2 days ago

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.

Comment by ghusto 2 days ago

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.

Comment by TFNA 2 days ago

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.

Comment by ghusto 1 day ago

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.

Comment by TFNA 1 day ago

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.

Comment by s1artibartfast 1 day ago

Yes? I dont think anyone disputing that religion can be chosen? How is this relevant?

Comment by rendx 2 days ago

> One invokes a supernatural higher power

Like the flying spaghetti monster?

Comment by s1artibartfast 1 day ago

If someone actually believed it, sure.

Comment by ok_dad 2 days ago

> in america there is in my opinion a single shared american culture, shared across people of different religions

Describe that single culture.

Comment by donkey_brains 2 days ago

“Fuck you, I got mine and I’ll step on your neck to keep it.”

Comment by mdmdldlemd 2 days ago

[dead]

Comment by RussianBot9580 1 day ago

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.

Comment by SR2Z 2 days ago

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.

Comment by manarth 1 day ago

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.

Comment by SR2Z 13 hours ago

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.

Comment by adjejmxbdjdn 2 days ago

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.

Comment by Smoosh 2 days ago

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.

Comment by adjejmxbdjdn 1 day ago

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”.

Comment by BeetleB 2 days ago

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.

Comment by echoangle 2 days ago

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…

Comment by n4r9 2 days ago

> McKechnie dropped the thiamine issue as “not important,” after lawyers for the prison authorities objected to his evidence.

Comment by ChrisRR 2 days ago

Or you know, a multivitamin

Comment by kotaKat 2 days ago

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?

Comment by 1 day ago

Comment by fatata123 1 day ago

[dead]

Comment by mrkeen 2 days ago

  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?

Comment by adjejmxbdjdn 1 day ago

They’ve not asked for a burden of proof standard.

They’ve asked for “proper foundations”.

Comment by npc99 2 days ago

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

Comment by Tade0 2 days ago

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.

Comment by alexjplant 2 days ago

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.

Comment by Tade0 2 days ago

> 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.

Comment by wiether 2 days ago

  > One must apply it like [...] thermal paste.

Instructions unclear!

https://www.technewstoday.com/best-pattern-to-apply-thermal-...

Comment by BobbyTables2 2 days ago

I’m sure some will try using vegemite as thermal paste…

Comment by BashiBazouk 2 days ago

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...

Comment by ElCapitanMarkla 1 day ago

And as further punishment they will now be supplying toast with Marmite.

Comment by ChrisRR 2 days ago

> As a Jew who observed kosher law

> serving a life sentence for murder

Well which is it?

Comment by n4r9 2 days ago

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.

Comment by moi2388 2 days ago

“ 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?

Comment by n4r9 2 days ago

> 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.

Comment by Rendello 2 days ago

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/

Comment by brettermeier 2 days ago

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.

Comment by pixl97 2 days ago

Do they ban all sugar, or just any sugars that could contain yeast?

Comment by aaron695 2 days ago

[dead]

Comment by kleiba2 2 days ago

> Vegemite is typically considered an acquired taste at best by those who weren’t raised on it.

Comment by esafak 2 days ago

That's cause you're on Team Marmite instead, eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite

Comment by ChrisRR 2 days ago

Marmite would also be banned if it's because it throws off the sniffer dogs

Comment by Toynbeeidea 2 days ago

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.

Comment by MisterTea 2 days ago

I had the privileged to sample both at a friends house and both were ... uh, interesting on buttered bread.

Comment by kleiba2 2 days ago

Haha, no, my +1 was not because I agree with the statement, I just appreciated the wording.

Comment by somenameforme 2 days ago

I loved it the first time I had it. On the other hand I also loved durian the first time I had it too.

Comment by smoll 2 days ago

> 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.

Comment by anakaine 1 day ago

Why the move overseas?

Comment by mjcarden 2 days ago

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...

Comment by comrade1234 2 days ago

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.

Comment by aunty_helen 2 days ago

This goes against the vibe of the constitution.

Comment by howard941 2 days ago

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.

Comment by rnbnnnn 1 day ago

  I said, "Do you speak-a my language?"
  He just smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich