In 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, calling for the return of their political status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP before his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, in private, the government sought an exit, and public opinion had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The well-being of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without food. (For context, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – succumbed on the 46th day.) The young activist Qesser Zuhrah is being treated in hospital after she reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Another three have refused food for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have now ended their protest, one after hospitalisation.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, serious burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, and in relation to an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. Each has already spent more than a year in prison before trial – far exceeding the standard custody limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of prompt release on bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and revoking the proscription on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink the banning order not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its inaction and seeming apathy when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have contended that banning orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a high court judge; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Pre-Trial Detention
More urgently, it should address the issue of remand. Failures of the legal and prison systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait this long for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, except for in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Lawyers have pointed out that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Authorities have stated that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar with them. The government is naturally cautious of setting precedents. But it should not simply disregard this in the hope that it will go away. Recently, the failure of the Justice Secretary to reply to MPs’ requests for information was described as completely unsatisfactory. When questioned on the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was perfunctory. The government must address the issue and examine the arguments for bail. At present it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
