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, 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 resolution, and public opinion had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Health
The lives of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without food. (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 was said to have collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Another three have refused food for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have now ended their protest, a single protester after hospitalisation.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for alleged criminal damage, aggravated burglary and violent 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 – far exceeding the usual six-month limit. Some may not be face trial 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 the banning order not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Striking Contrast in Government Response
There is a glaring disparity between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its lack of action and seeming apathy when faced with the loss of life 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. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have argued that banning orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should tackle the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the justice and penal 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. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Ministers have said that prisons see 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 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 completely unsatisfactory. When questioned on the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was cursory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
