During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP by the time of his death. The then-Prime Minister took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, behind the scenes, the government sought an exit, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The well-being of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners currently refusing food are at increasing risk. Last Friday, two reached day 48 without sustenance. (For context, 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 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 one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. A further two have since called off their protest, one after being hospitalized.
The Circumstances of Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported criminal damage, aggravated burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, 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 tried until 2027. Demands include prompt release on bail, lifting limits on their communications and revoking the proscription on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider the banning order not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Striking Contrast in Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the loss of life 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. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have argued that banning orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should tackle the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the legal and prison systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and poor prison conditions. No defendant should wait this long for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand are indefensible, 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 A Call to Engage
Authorities have stated that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar with them. The government is understandably wary of establishing a precedent. But it should not simply disregard this in the hope that it will fade. 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 perfunctory. The government must engage with the issue and examine the arguments for bail. Currently it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
