In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten men ultimately perished; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP by the time of his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. But by the end, in private, the government sought an resolution, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
An Escalating Danger to Lives
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated detainees awaiting trial now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Last Friday, two marked day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, 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 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 Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported criminal damage, aggravated 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. Each has already spent more than a year in prison before trial – much longer the standard custody 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.
Ministers should rethink proscription not because of this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Official Reaction
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands during a conflict in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have contended that banning orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should tackle the issue of remand. Failures of the legal and prison systems are leading to ever-longer waiting times and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait this long for trial. Extended stays on remand cannot be justified, except for in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Lawyers have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and A Call to Engage
Authorities have stated that prisons see around 200 hunger strikes a year and are “very experienced” with them. The government is naturally cautious of establishing a precedent. But it should not simply ignore this in the expectation that it will go away. Last week, 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 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.
