🔗 Share this article

In 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten would die; extraordinarily, their leader, Bobby Sands, had been elected as an MP by the time of his death. Margaret Thatcher took a hardline public stance. However, ultimately, in private, the government sought 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 now on hunger strike are at growing risk. Recently, two marked day 48 without sustenance. (By comparison, 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. Another three have abstained from eating for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, is eating only every other day. Two others have since called off their protest, one after hospitalisation.

The Context of Imprisonment

The prisoners are variously on remand for reported vandalism, aggravated burglary and public disorder at a factory for Elbit Systems, a defense contractor for Israel, 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 – much longer the usual six-month limit. Several may not be tried until 2027. Demands include prompt release on bail, lifting limits on their communications and ending the ban on Palestine Action.

The government ought to reconsider 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 draconian zeal in this regard and its inaction and apparent indifference when faced with the deaths of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. Over 1,600 arrests linked to support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have contended that banning orders ought to have time limits. The government should not await for a high court judge; it should change its mind now.

The Urgent Issue of Pre-Trial Detention

More urgently, it should tackle the issue of remand. Shortcomings 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 are indefensible, apart from in the most exceptionally serious cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be tagged while awaiting trial.

Official Complacency and A Call to Engage

Ministers have said that prisons see 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 expectation that it will fade. Recently, 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 cursory. The government must engage with the issue and examine the arguments for bail. Currently it looks worryingly unconcerned, given the prisoners’ sharply declining health.