During 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners began a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their special category status. Ten men ultimately perished; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP by the time of his death. Margaret Thatcher adopted a publicly uncompromising position. But by the end, in private, the government was looking for 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 increasing risk. Recently, two marked 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. 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, one after hospitalisation.
The Circumstances of Detention
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, aggravated burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, as well as an reported intrusion at RAF Brize Norton. Each has already spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – much longer the usual six-month limit. Some may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include immediate bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and revoking the ban on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink the banning order not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Government Response
There is a glaring disparity between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its lack of action and seeming apathy when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the quarter 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 high court judge; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
More urgently, it should address the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the legal and prison systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and poor prison conditions. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, apart from in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Ministers have said that prisons see around 200 hunger strikes a year and are “very experienced” with them. The government is understandably wary of establishing a precedent. 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 address the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
