In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, calling for the return of their special category status. Ten would die; extraordinarily, 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 was looking for an resolution, and public opinion had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Health
The well-being of the activists linked to Palestine Action detainees awaiting trial currently refusing food are at growing risk. Recently, two reached day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died 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. Three more have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. A further two have now ended their protest, a single protester after being hospitalized.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, 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 usual six-month limit. Several may not be tried until 2027. Demands include immediate 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 disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Official Reaction
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its inaction and seeming apathy when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands during a conflict in Gaza. More than 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 argued that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.
The Urgent Issue of Pre-Trial Detention
More urgently, it should tackle 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 are indefensible, except for in the most exceptionally serious cases. Lawyers have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and A Call to Engage
Ministers have said 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 expectation that it will fade. Recently, 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 perfunctory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
