In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, calling for the return of their political status. Ten men ultimately perished; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP by the time of his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. But by the end, in private, the government sought an exit, and the public mood had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The well-being of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Last Friday, two reached day 48 without food. (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 was said to have collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. 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, a single protester after hospitalisation.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for alleged criminal damage, aggravated burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, as well as an reported intrusion at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison before trial – much longer the usual six-month limit. Some may not be tried until 2027. Demands include immediate bail, lifting limits on their communications and ending the proscription on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider the banning order 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 draconian zeal in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Independent reviewers 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 Urgent Issue of Remand
More urgently, it should address the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the justice and penal systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Extended stays on remand cannot be justified, apart from in the most exceptionally serious cases. Lawyers have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Authorities have stated that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar with them. The government is understandably wary of setting precedents. 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 questioned on the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was cursory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
