In 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, demanding the restoration of their political 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. However, ultimately, in private, the government was looking for an resolution, and public opinion had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Recently, two reached 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. Three more have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. A further two have since called off their protest, a single protester after hospitalisation.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are variously on remand for alleged vandalism, aggravated burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, and in relation to an reported intrusion at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – far exceeding the usual six-month limit. Some 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 the banning order not because of this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Striking Contrast in Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s draconian zeal in this regard and its lack of action 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 high court judge; it should reverse its decision now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
With greater immediacy, 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. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, except for in the most exceptionally serious cases. Legal representatives have pointed out that defendants could be tagged while awaiting trial.
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 naturally cautious of establishing a precedent. But it should not simply ignore 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 “totally unacceptable”. When questioned on the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was perfunctory. The government must address the issue and review the arguments for bail. At present it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
