In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their special category 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. But by the end, behind the scenes, the government sought an resolution, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
An Escalating Danger to Lives
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Recently, two reached day 48 without sustenance. (For context, 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, is eating only every other day. Two others have now ended their protest, a single protester after being hospitalized.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are being held for alleged vandalism, aggravated burglary and violent disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, 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 – far exceeding the standard custody limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include prompt release on bail, lifting limits on their communications and ending the ban on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink proscription not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Official Reaction
There is a glaring disparity between the government’s draconian zeal in this regard and its lack of action and seeming apathy when faced with the loss of life of tens of thousands during a conflict in Gaza. More than 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 contended that proscription orders ought to have time limits. The government should not await for a high court judge; it should reverse its decision now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should address the issue of remand. Failures of the legal and prison systems are leading to ever-longer waiting times and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait this long for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, apart from in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.
Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue
Authorities have stated that prisons handle 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 ignore this in the hope that it will go away. Last week, 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.
