During 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners initiated a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, calling for the return of their political status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected 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 changed dramatically.
An Escalating Danger to Lives
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without food. (For context, 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 refused food for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. A further two have now ended their protest, a single protester after hospitalisation.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are being held for reported vandalism, serious burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, and in relation to an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – much longer the usual six-month limit. Several may not be tried until 2027. Their requests consist of prompt release on bail, lifting limits on their communications and revoking the ban 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 severe enthusiasm in this regard and its lack of action and apparent indifference when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands during a conflict 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 argued that proscription 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. 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 waiting for their court date.
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 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 cursory. 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.
