During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten would die; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP by the time of his death. The then-Prime Minister took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, in private, the government was looking for an resolution, and public opinion had changed dramatically.
An Escalating Danger to Health
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated detainees awaiting trial now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Last Friday, two reached day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – succumbed 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 also been treated. Another three have refused food for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have now ended their protest, a single protester after being hospitalized.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported vandalism, aggravated burglary and violent 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 before trial – far exceeding the standard custody limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of immediate bail, lifting limits on their communications and revoking 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 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. More than 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the quarter following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have argued that banning orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
More urgently, it should address 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. Extended stays on remand cannot be justified, except for in the most exceptionally serious cases. Legal representatives have pointed out that defendants could be tagged while awaiting trial.
Government Inaction and An Appeal for Dialogue
Ministers have said that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar with them. The government is naturally cautious of establishing a precedent. But it should not simply disregard 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 address the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
