During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, 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. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. But by the end, behind the scenes, the government sought an exit, and public opinion had shifted significantly.
An Escalating Danger to Lives
The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated remand prisoners currently refusing food are at growing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died 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 also been treated. 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 being hospitalized.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, serious burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, as well as an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. Each has already spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – far exceeding the standard custody limit. Several may not be tried until 2027. Their requests consist of immediate bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and ending the proscription on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink proscription not because of this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Striking Contrast in Government Response
There is a glaring disparity between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands during a conflict in Gaza. Over 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 should be subject to time limits. The government does not need to wait for a judicial ruling; it should change its mind now.
The Urgent Issue of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should tackle the issue of remand. Shortcomings 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 handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar with them. The government is understandably wary of establishing a precedent. But it should not simply disregard 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 perfunctory. The government must engage with the issue and examine the arguments for bail. Currently it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
