In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, calling for the return of their political status. Ten would die; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP before his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. But by the end, in private, the government sought an resolution, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Health
The well-being of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Recently, two reached day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died on the 46th day.) The young activist Qesser Zuhrah is being treated in hospital after she reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Three more have refused food for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. A further two have since called off their protest, one after being hospitalized.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, serious burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, as well as an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. Each has already spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – far exceeding the standard custody limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of prompt release on bail, lifting limits on their communications and revoking the proscription on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider the banning order not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Glaring Disparity in Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s draconian zeal in this regard and its inaction and seeming apathy when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the quarter following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors 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 change its mind now.
The Urgent Issue of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should tackle the issue of remand. Failures 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. Such lengthy periods on remand are indefensible, except for in the most exceptionally serious cases. Lawyers have pointed out that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Government Inaction 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 setting precedents. But it should not simply ignore this in the expectation 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 asked about the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was perfunctory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. At present it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
