During 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners initiated 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 by the time of his death. Margaret Thatcher adopted a publicly uncompromising position. However, ultimately, behind the scenes, the government sought an exit, and the public mood had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The well-being of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without food. (For context, 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 also been treated. Three more have refused food for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, one after being hospitalized.
The Circumstances of Detention
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, aggravated burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, as well as an reported intrusion at RAF Brize Norton. Each has already spent more than a year in prison before trial – far exceeding the standard custody limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include immediate bail, lifting limits on their communications and revoking the proscription on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink the banning order not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Glaring Disparity in Official Reaction
There is a glaring disparity between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests linked to 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 should be subject to time limits. The government does not need to wait for a high court judge; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
More urgently, it should tackle the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the justice and penal systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, apart from in the most exceptionally serious cases. Legal representatives have pointed out that defendants could be tagged while waiting for their court date.
Official Complacency 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 establishing a precedent. But it should not simply ignore 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 “totally unacceptable”. When questioned on 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 dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
