🔗 Share this article

During 1981, IRA and other republican prisoners initiated a hunger strike in Northern Ireland, demanding the restoration of their political status. Ten would die; remarkably, their leader, Bobby Sands, was voted in as an MP before his death. The then-Prime Minister took a hardline public stance. But by the end, behind the scenes, the government was looking for an exit, and public opinion had shifted significantly.

A Growing Risk to Lives

The lives of the Palestine Action-affiliated detainees awaiting trial now on hunger strike are at increasing 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.) The young activist Qesser Zuhrah is being treated in hospital after she was said to have collapsed at HMP Bronzefield. Amu Gib, 30, has also been treated. Three more have refused food for more than 40 days and one other, who has diabetes, consumes food only every other day. Two others have now ended their protest, one after being hospitalized.

The Circumstances of Imprisonment

The prisoners are variously on remand for alleged vandalism, 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. All will have spent more than a year in prison prior to their day in court – far exceeding the usual six-month limit. Several may not be face trial until 2027. Demands include immediate bail, stopping restrictions on their communications and ending the ban on Palestine Action.

The government ought to reconsider the banning order 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 loss of life of tens of thousands in a war in Gaza. More than 1,600 arrests associated with support for Palestine Action were made in the three months following the ban’s introduction. Independent reviewers of terrorism laws have contended that proscription orders should be subject to time limits. The government should not await for a judicial ruling; it should reverse its decision now.

The Pressing Matter of Remand

With greater immediacy, it should tackle the issue of remand. Shortcomings of the legal and prison systems are leading to ever-longer waiting times and poor prison conditions. No defendant should wait for such a duration for trial. Extended stays on remand cannot be justified, except for in the most exceptionally serious cases. Legal representatives have noted that defendants could be electronically monitored while awaiting trial.

Official Complacency and An Appeal for Dialogue

Ministers have said that prisons see 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 ignore 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 completely unsatisfactory. When asked about the prisoners, the Prime Minister’s response was perfunctory. The government must engage with the issue and review the arguments for bail. At present it looks dangerously complacent, given the prisoners’ rapidly deteriorating health.