In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, calling for the return of their political status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP by the time of his death. The then-Prime Minister adopted a publicly uncompromising position. But by the end, behind the scenes, the government was looking for an exit, and the public mood had shifted significantly.
An Escalating Danger to Lives
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 food. (For context, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died 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 abstained from eating for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have now ended their protest, one 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, and in relation to an reported intrusion at RAF Brize Norton. Each has already spent more than a year in prison before trial – far exceeding the usual six-month limit. Some may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of 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 because of this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its lack of action and seeming apathy 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. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have argued that proscription orders ought to have time limits. The government should not await 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. Shortcomings of the justice and penal systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and poor prison conditions. 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 electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and A Call to Engage
Authorities have stated that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are “very experienced” with them. The government is understandably wary of setting precedents. But it should not simply disregard this in the hope that it will fade. Last week, 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 cursory. The government must address the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
