During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners began a hunger strike within the Maze Prison, demanding the restoration of their special category status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP before his death. Margaret Thatcher adopted a publicly uncompromising position. But by the end, behind the scenes, the government was looking for an resolution, and public opinion had changed dramatically.
A Growing Risk to Lives
The well-being of the activists linked to Palestine Action remand prisoners now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without food. (For context, in 1981, one IRA prisoner – 29-year-old Martin Hurson – died on the 46th day.) Twenty-year-old Qesser Zuhrah has been admitted in hospital after she was said to have collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has also been treated. Three more have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and another, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. A further two have since called off their protest, one 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, a defense contractor for Israel, and in relation to an alleged break-in 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. Demands include immediate bail, lifting limits 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 Official Reaction
There is a striking contrast between the government’s severe enthusiasm in this regard and its lack of action and apparent indifference 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 banning orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a high court judge; it should change its mind now.
The Pressing Matter of Remand
With greater immediacy, it should address the issue of remand. Failures of the justice and penal systems are leading to ever-longer waiting times and substandard detention environments. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Such lengthy periods on remand cannot be justified, apart from in the most exceptionally serious cases. Lawyers have noted that defendants could be tagged 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 understandably wary of setting precedents. But it should not simply disregard 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 “totally unacceptable”. When asked about the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was cursory. The government must address the issue and examine the arguments for bail. At present it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.
