Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

was hoping.

He argued that being refused, yet they don't serve it, I guess, in prison anymore, that he has, according to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act, the ability as a culture to enjoy it.

Judge said...

Sit down.

The salty, sticky, black brown byproduct of brewing beer to the Supreme Court of the state of Victoria.

He had argued that being refused the Vegemite denied him his right under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.

And apparently this was not a slam dunk for the courts.

They really had to let the Australian people know exactly why this man was not being allowed to indulge in Vegemite.

Now, they describe it as a polarizing yeast-based spread and a salty, sticky, black-brown byproduct of brewing beer.

I'm not sure if that makes it sound... tempting or not, but he had argued that not getting his Vegemite denied him his right under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act to enjoy his culture as an Australian in the community with other persons of Australian background.

That's all from his legal filings.

The justice accepted the prison authority's refusal to allow his Vegemite and said that it's not limiting his cultural rights.

Yeah, well, I agree with you.

I just don't see how that can work because I don't see how you could argue that the scheme that they've already put into place and hasn't been tested yet, so it could be found to be unconstitutional as well or against kind of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

But we don't have an explicit thing in the Charter that says you are entitled to health care.

And that was considered, but it was left out.

So he's serving life for murder.

And he argued that refusing Vegemite denied his right under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act to enjoy his culture as an Australian in the community with other persons of Australian background.

Well, the court said, yeah, no,

that's not.

And in his view, the broader interpretation that would have included egg freezing within the definition of assisted reproductive technology would not have been compatible with the right to humane treatment of people in detention or with the right to access health services without discrimination.

Moving away from Queensland, I understand that there have been cases involving prisoners and access to artificial reproductive treatments in Victoria, which have relied on the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities.

Who is Kimberley Castles? It was a decision back in 2010.

That was a really important decision, which has also influenced development of jurisprudence in Queensland.

And what did the court find? I think it was the Supreme Court of Victoria.

That's right.

Now, the decision actually didn't rely on the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, but the Victorian Charter was considered in significant detail and supported the decision that was made.

Justice Emerton, who was the judge in the case, she considered that in the circumstances of the case, providing access to IVF would be compatible with the right to humane treatment for prisoners.

sure.

But, you know, I was thinking about it this morning and I was thinking, where's the logic? How would they actually compile that evidence? And is it actually, could we actually do something, could it actually be against the Victorian Charter of Human Rights? Yes.

The journalistic route is a possibility.

We could get a friendly journalist to use Freedom of Information to ask about the list and how it was compiled.