In 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten would die; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP by the time of 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 Health
The lives of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without sustenance. (For context, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – succumbed on the 46th day.) Twenty-year-old 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 refused food for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, a single protester after being hospitalized.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for alleged vandalism, serious burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, 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 usual six-month limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of immediate bail, lifting limits on their communications and revoking the ban on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink proscription not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Official Reaction
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 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. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have argued that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.
The Urgent Issue 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 substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait for such a duration 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 awaiting trial.
Government Inaction and A Call to Engage
Authorities have stated that prisons see around 200 hunger strikes a year and are “very experienced” with them. The government is naturally cautious 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 “totally unacceptable”. When asked about the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was perfunctory. The government must address the issue and review the arguments for bail. At present it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
