During 1981, Irish Republican Army and fellow prisoners began a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten men ultimately perished; remarkably, 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 was looking for an resolution, and the public mood had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The well-being of the Palestine Action-affiliated detainees awaiting trial currently refusing food are at growing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without food. (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 reportedly collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has also been treated. Another three have refused food 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 being hospitalized.
The Context of Detention
The prisoners are being held for reported criminal damage, aggravated burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms manufacturer, and in relation to an alleged break-in at RAF Brize Norton. All will have spent more than a year in prison before trial – far exceeding the usual six-month limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Their requests consist of prompt release on bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and ending the ban on Palestine Action.
The government ought to reconsider the banning order not due to this hunger strike, but because it was an disproportionate and repressive measure.
A Striking Contrast in Government Response
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its inaction and seeming apathy when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. More than 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 contended 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 Pre-Trial Detention
With greater immediacy, it should address 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 this long for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, apart from in the most extraordinarily grave cases. Lawyers have noted 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 “very experienced” with them. The government is understandably wary of setting precedents. But it should not simply ignore 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 completely unsatisfactory. When asked about the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was perfunctory. The government must address the issue and review the arguments for bail. At present it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
