In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, calling for the return of their political status. Ten would die; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP before his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, behind the scenes, the government sought an resolution, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Health
The well-being of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Recently, two reached day 48 without food. (For context, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died on the 46th day.) The young activist Qesser Zuhrah is being treated in hospital after she was said to have collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has also been treated. Three more have refused food for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, a single protester after hospitalisation.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported criminal damage, serious burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, and in relation to an reported intrusion at RAF Brize Norton. Each has already spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – far exceeding the standard custody limit. Some may not be tried until 2027. Demands include immediate bail, lifting limits on their communications and ending the ban on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink the banning order not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Glaring Disparity in Official Reaction
There is a glaring disparity 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 during a conflict 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 proscription orders ought to have time limits. The government does not need to wait for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
More urgently, it should tackle 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 exceptionally serious cases. Legal representatives have pointed out that defendants could be electronically monitored while waiting for their court date.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Ministers have said that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar with them. The government is naturally cautious of establishing a precedent. But it should not simply disregard this in the expectation 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 dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
