In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten men ultimately perished; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP before his death. The then-Prime Minister took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, in private, the government sought an resolution, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The well-being of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Last Friday, two reached day 48 without food. (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 reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Three more have refused food for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. A further two have since called off their protest, a single protester after being hospitalized.
The Circumstances of Detention
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, serious burglary and public 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 – much longer the usual six-month limit. Some may not be tried until 2027. Demands include immediate bail, lifting limits on their communications and revoking the ban on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider the banning order not due to 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 draconian zeal in this regard and its lack of action 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 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 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 cannot be justified, except for 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 An Appeal for Dialogue
Authorities have stated that prisons see around 200 hunger strikes a year and are “very experienced” 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. 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’ sharply declining health.
