During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, 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. The then-Prime Minister adopted a publicly uncompromising position. However, ultimately, in private, the government sought an resolution, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners currently refusing food are at growing risk. Last Friday, two reached day 48 without food. (For context, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died on the 46th day.) Twenty-year-old 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. Another three have refused food for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. A further two have now ended their protest, one after being hospitalized.
The Circumstances of Imprisonment
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported vandalism, 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 prior to their day in court – far exceeding the standard custody limit. Some may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include immediate bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and ending the ban on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink proscription not because of this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
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 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 banning 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 increasingly lengthy delays 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 extraordinarily grave cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored 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 “very experienced” with them. The government is understandably wary of establishing a precedent. But it should not simply disregard this in the hope that it will fade. Recently, 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 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.
