Well, religious diets are arguably not voluntary. I'd say it's far different to allow a Kosher meal than it is to plan, purchase, prep, and serve a special diet to one inmate who has a preference of diet because that is how they chose to eat on the outside.
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.
>Religious diets are not voluntary, but choice of religion is voluntary.
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?
> Religious diets are not voluntary, but choice of religion is voluntary.
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.
Where are you drawing this line between religion and ethics? Jews believe it is wrong to eat pork, vegans believe it is wrong to eat animals. What makes one of these beliefs a protected status and one not?
>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.
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.
The document you linked to does not protect personal choice of diet.
> 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.
Not really -- the direct parent of my comment was making the point that ethics are indeed a reason to obey prisoner's dietary desires. As I pointed out -- they are not.
