In 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, demanding the restoration of their special category 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. But by the end, behind the scenes, the government was looking for an exit, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The well-being of the Palestine Action-affiliated detainees awaiting trial currently refusing food are at increasing risk. Recently, two marked 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 has been admitted in hospital after she reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has also been treated. Another three have refused food for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. Two others have now ended their protest, one after hospitalisation.
The Circumstances of Imprisonment
The prisoners are being held for reported vandalism, aggravated burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, and in relation to 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 proscription not because of 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 draconian zeal in this regard and its lack of action and apparent indifference when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the quarter following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have argued that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government does not need to wait for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.
The Urgent Issue of Remand
More urgently, it should address the issue of remand. Failures of the justice and penal systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and poor prison conditions. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand are indefensible, apart from in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Legal representatives have pointed out that defendants could be electronically monitored while waiting for their court date.
Official Complacency 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 setting precedents. 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 cursory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. At present it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
