In 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, calling for the return of their special category status. Ten men ultimately perished; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP by the time of his death. Margaret Thatcher adopted a publicly uncompromising position. However, ultimately, behind the scenes, the government sought an resolution, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
An Escalating Danger to Health
The well-being of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at increasing risk. Recently, two reached day 48 without sustenance. (For context, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died 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 also been treated. Three more have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, one after hospitalisation.
The Circumstances of Detention
The prisoners are being held for reported vandalism, serious 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 before trial – far exceeding the usual six-month limit. Some may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of prompt release on bail, lifting limits on their communications and ending the proscription on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider proscription not because of 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 lack of action and apparent indifference when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the quarter following the ban’s introduction. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have argued that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.
The Urgent Issue 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 are indefensible, except for in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Lawyers 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 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 “totally unacceptable”. 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 worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
