I understand Kosher for commercial enterprises like airlines: with a minimum of effort, they can satisfy many customers. But governments should have consistent treatment of citizens.
Religious diets are not voluntary, but choice of religion is voluntary.
Vegetarian/vegan diets adhering to an ethical philosophy are not voluntary, but choosing to accept an animal rights philosophy is voluntary.
Either both are a choice or neither are a choice, depending on how you define your terms.
Now, if the vegan diet was for personal taste or even for health reasons (as long as there was no significant health impact from going off of it), then it's a different story.
Care to elaborate on this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I cannot see how a religious diet is not voluntary. Surely someone on a religious diet could eat certain foods if they choose to or not, no?
Agreed
> Vegetarian/vegan diets adhering to an ethical philosophy are not voluntary, but choosing to accept an animal rights philosophy is voluntary.
Not agreed. Your right to accept certain philosophies while in prion is forfeited upon conviction. This means, if you are not eating meat because you simply feel it's wrong -- well, the prison has no obligation to oblige you. If you are not eating meat because of your religion, that is different. Sure - one may "convert" to a new religion to obtain a certain preferred diet, but that is still applying the rule evenly and fairly.
> Now, if the vegan diet was for personal taste or even for health reasons (as long as there was no significant health impact from going off of it), then it's a different story.
This would be the foundation for an awful law which would be enforced with bias and randomness. How do you actually determine if a diet is being followed for pure taste reasoning, or if it's something based on personal ethics? You cannot, and therefore this cannot be a rule. Rules and laws must be based on a foundation that can be applied evenly and fairly to all, not left up to judgement by a sometimes-in-a-nice-mood-sometimes-in-a-bad-mood warden.
>How do you actually determine if a diet is being followed for pure taste reasoning, or if it's something based on personal ethics?
One can also lie about religious affiliation, or magically "convert", to get better or alternative meals, and in fact some prisoners do this. I don't see your point.
Religious belief and ethical belief both reside in someone's mind and nowhere else.
There are a bunch of international covenants and agreements that disagree with you.
This document talks specifically about food: http://www.prisonersabroad.org.uk/uploads/documents/prisoner...
Your misrepresentations of the reasons some people are vegan or vegetarian are so severe it makes the conversation pointless. Some people have beliefs about eatig meat that are equivalent to religious belief.
> 2.3.9 European Prison Rules
> See para (1.2.4) above for an explanation of the European Prison Rules. Rule 22 states “Prisoners shall be provided with a nutritious diet that takes into account their ... religion, culture ..."
> 2.4 Vegetarian and Vegan diets
> In some countries, the food provided to all prisoners may be vegetarian (non-vegetarians may have to buy meat).
So the inverse is true with prisons that serve meat.
> Receiving vegetarian or vegan meals in prison may not be an easy process. In some countries, you may be required to show that your request for a vegetarian or vegan diet is based on ethical or religious beliefs.
Again, the EU portion of this document does not protect ethical beliefs, only religious ones.
There are plenty of people workig on makig prisons nicer for prisoners. This includes respecting their religion (as guided by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Wardens are not robots and are capable of applying common sense and judgment. If a prisoner claims that his morals require him not to eat animal products, he's likely to be telling the truth. If he claims his morals require Kobe beef daily, he's probably lying.
Also, because people who request kosher, halal, vegetarian, or vegan diets in prison aren't generally demanding higher-quality food, just different food. When accommodated, they generally still get low-grade prison fare. Thus there's little motivation to lie about it.
I understand that law interpreters are not mindless robots. However it seems very arbitrary to support kosher and halal, but not Pastafarian diets.
It's as silly as only granting conscientious objector status to "real" Mennonites.
The thing is, you're not going to do that, and neither is anyone else. Policy should not be guided by ridiculous hypotheticals.
Yes, what a shame in such an otherwise elegant and consistent system.