In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, calling for the return 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. However, ultimately, behind the scenes, the government sought an exit, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Health
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated detainees awaiting trial 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 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, is eating only every other day. A further two have now ended their protest, a single protester after hospitalisation.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for reported criminal damage, aggravated burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, 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 usual six-month limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of immediate bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and revoking the proscription 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 Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm 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 associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have argued that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government does not need to wait for a high court judge; it should change its mind 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 ever-longer waiting times and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait this long for trial. Extended stays on remand cannot be justified, apart from in the most exceptionally serious cases. Lawyers have pointed out that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Ministers have said that prisons handle 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 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 questioned on the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was cursory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
