During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP before his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, in private, the government sought an resolution, and the public mood had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The lives of the activists linked to Palestine Action detainees awaiting trial currently refusing food are at increasing risk. Recently, two reached 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 is being treated in hospital after she was said to have collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Three more have refused food 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 Circumstances of Imprisonment
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported vandalism, 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. All will have spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – much longer the usual six-month limit. Some may not be tried until 2027. Demands include immediate bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and ending 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 Official Reaction
There is a striking contrast 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 during a conflict in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have contended that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
More urgently, it should address the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the legal and prison systems are leading to ever-longer waiting times and poor prison conditions. No defendant should wait this long for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand are indefensible, apart from in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while waiting for their court date.
Government Inaction 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 disregard this in the expectation 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 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.
