During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, calling for the return of their political status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP by the time of his death. The then-Prime Minister took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, in private, the government was looking for an resolution, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Health
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated detainees awaiting trial now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died on the 46th day.) Twenty-year-old Qesser Zuhrah has been admitted in hospital after she was said to have collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has also been treated. Another three have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, one after hospitalisation.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are being held for alleged vandalism, serious burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, as well as an reported intrusion at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison before trial – much longer the standard custody limit. Several may not be tried until 2027. Demands include prompt release on bail, lifting limits on their communications and ending the proscription 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 Glaring Disparity in Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s draconian zeal in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the quarter following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have contended that banning orders should be subject to time limits. The government does not need to wait for a high court judge; it should reverse its decision now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
More urgently, it should tackle the issue of remand. Failures of the legal and prison 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, except for in the most exceptionally serious cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Authorities have stated that prisons handle 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 hope that it will fade. Last week, 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 perfunctory. 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.
