During 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; extraordinarily, 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 was looking for an exit, and the public mood had shifted significantly.
A Growing Risk to Health
The lives of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners currently refusing food are at growing risk. Last Friday, two reached day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – succumbed on the 46th day.) The young activist Qesser Zuhrah has been admitted in hospital after she was said to have collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has likewise received medical care. Three more have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, a single protester after hospitalisation.
The Context of Imprisonment
The prisoners are being held for alleged criminal damage, aggravated burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, and in relation to an reported intrusion at RAF Brize Norton. Each has already spent more than a year in prison before trial – much longer the standard custody limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of immediate bail, lifting limits on their communications and revoking the proscription on Palestine Action.
Ministers should rethink proscription not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an illiberal overreaction.
A Glaring Disparity in Official Reaction
There is a striking contrast between the government’s draconian zeal in this regard and its lack of action and seeming apathy when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands during a conflict in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Expert assessors of terrorism laws have argued that banning orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.
The Urgent Issue of Remand
More urgently, it should tackle the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the justice and penal systems are leading to increasingly lengthy delays and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Extended stays on remand are indefensible, except for in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while waiting for their court date.
Official Complacency and A Call to Engage
Ministers have said that prisons handle around 200 hunger strikes a year and are highly familiar 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 “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. At present it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.
