In 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 before his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, behind the scenes, the government sought an resolution, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The lives of the activists linked to Palestine Action detainees awaiting trial now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Recently, 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 has been admitted in hospital after she reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Another three have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, one after being hospitalized.
The Circumstances of Imprisonment
The prisoners are being held for alleged vandalism, 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. All will have spent more than a year in prison before trial – far exceeding the usual six-month limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include 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 Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its lack of action and apparent indifference when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have contended that proscription orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.
The Urgent Issue of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should address the issue of remand. Failures of the justice and penal systems are leading to ever-longer waiting times and poor prison conditions. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand are indefensible, apart from in the most exceptionally serious cases. Lawyers have pointed out that defendants could be electronically monitored while waiting for their court date.
Official Complacency and A Call to Engage
Authorities have stated that prisons see around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar with them. The government is understandably wary of establishing a precedent. 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 completely unsatisfactory. When questioned on the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was cursory. The government must address the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
