In 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, calling for the return of their political status. Ten men ultimately perished; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP before his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. But by the end, in private, the government was looking for an resolution, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The lives of the activists linked to Palestine Action detainees awaiting trial currently refusing food are at growing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without food. (For context, 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. Another three have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. Two others have now ended their protest, one after hospitalisation.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported 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 before trial – much longer the standard custody limit. Some may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include prompt release on bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and revoking the proscription on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider proscription 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 inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands during a conflict in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have contended that proscription orders ought to have 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 address 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. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, apart from in the most exceptionally serious cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while waiting for their court date.
Official Complacency and A Call to Engage
Ministers have said 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 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 questioned on the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was perfunctory. The government must engage with the issue and examine the arguments for bail. Currently it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
