In 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten men ultimately perished; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP before his death. Margaret Thatcher adopted a publicly uncompromising position. But by the end, in private, the government sought an resolution, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Health
The lives of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – succumbed on the 46th day.) The young activist Qesser Zuhrah has been admitted in hospital after she reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Three more have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. A further two have now ended their protest, one after being hospitalized.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are being held for reported vandalism, aggravated burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, as well as an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – much longer the standard custody limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of immediate bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and ending the proscription on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider the banning order not because of this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Glaring Disparity in Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s draconian zeal in this regard and its lack of action and apparent indifference when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests associated with 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 does not need to wait for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should address the issue of remand. Failures of the legal and prison systems are leading to ever-longer waiting times and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, except for in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Legal representatives have pointed out that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Ministers have said that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are “very experienced” with them. The government is naturally cautious of setting precedents. But it should not simply ignore 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 asked about the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was cursory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. At present it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
