During 1981, IRA and other republican 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. But by the end, behind the scenes, the government was looking for an resolution, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Health
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated detainees awaiting trial currently refusing food are at increasing risk. Last Friday, two marked day 48 without food. (For context, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – succumbed on the 46th day.) The young activist Qesser Zuhrah is being treated in hospital after she reportedly 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, is eating only every other day. A further two have since called off their protest, one after being hospitalized.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported vandalism, aggravated burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, as well as an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison before trial – much longer the standard custody limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include prompt release on 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 illiberal overreaction.
A Striking Contrast in Official Reaction
There is a glaring disparity between the government’s draconian zeal in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands during a conflict in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the quarter following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have contended that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government does not need to wait for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
More urgently, it should tackle the issue of remand. Failures of the legal and prison systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait this long for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, except for in the most extraordinarily grave 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
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 hope that it will go away. 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 engage with the issue and examine the arguments for bail. At present it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
