During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten men ultimately perished; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP by the time of his death. The then-Prime Minister took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, in private, the government was looking for an resolution, and the public mood had shifted significantly.
An Escalating Danger to Health
The lives of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners currently refusing food are at increasing risk. Recently, two reached 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 is being treated in hospital after she reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Another three 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, one after being hospitalized.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are being held for reported criminal damage, aggravated burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, as well as an reported intrusion 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 tried until 2027. Their requests consist of immediate bail, lifting limits 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 disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Official Reaction
There is a glaring disparity 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 linked to 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 should not await 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 justice and penal 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 are indefensible, apart from in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Legal representatives have noted 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 understandably wary of setting precedents. But it should not simply ignore this in the expectation that it will fade. Recently, 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 examine the arguments for bail. At present it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
