In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, calling for the return of their political status. Ten men ultimately perished; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in 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 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 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 likewise received medical care. Another three have refused food for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. A further two have now ended their protest, one after hospitalisation.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are variously on remand for alleged criminal damage, aggravated burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, and in relation to an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – much longer the standard custody 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.
Ministers should rethink the banning order not because of this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Glaring Disparity in Government Response
There is a glaring disparity between the government’s draconian zeal in this regard and its inaction and seeming apathy when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. More than 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 should be subject to time limits. The government does not need to wait for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should address the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the legal and prison systems are leading to ever-longer waiting times and poor prison conditions. 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 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 highly familiar with them. The government is understandably wary of setting precedents. But it should not simply ignore this in the expectation that it will go away. Recently, the failure of the Justice Secretary to reply to MPs’ requests for information was described as completely unsatisfactory. When asked about the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was cursory. The government must address the issue and review the arguments for bail. Currently it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
