During 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners began a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten would die; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP before his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, behind the scenes, the government was looking for an resolution, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
An Escalating Danger to Lives
The well-being of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners currently refusing food are at growing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without food. (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 also been treated. Another three have refused food 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, a single protester after being hospitalized.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, aggravated burglary and public 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 before trial – far exceeding the usual six-month limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include prompt release on bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and ending the ban on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider proscription not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Glaring Disparity 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 deaths of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. Over 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 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
More urgently, it should address the issue of remand. Shortcomings 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. Extended stays on remand cannot be justified, except for in the most exceptionally serious cases. Lawyers have pointed out that defendants could be tagged while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and A Call to Engage
Ministers have said 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 expectation that it will go away. Last week, 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 review the arguments for bail. At present it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
