The Palestine Action hunger strike and British democracy

By Alannah Henry

The proscription of pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action earlier this year was met with a myriad of reactions, with some arguing that this was a reasonable response to the group’s high-profile disruption. However, I echo the popular condemnation of their proscription as an Orwellian attempt to quiet dissent to the UK’s complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The most recent development of eight prisoners, held in prolonged remand related to offences with the group, resorting to hunger strike only strengthens their defense.

The first two hunger strikers began on 2 November, whilst others have followed in subsequent days and weeks. The prisoners are being held on suspicion of offences relating to defacing British military aircrafts involved with Israel, as well as breaking into the UK site of Elbit Systems (Israel’s largest defense contractor). Activists have expressed the intention to strike until the government meets their demands: the de-proscription of Palestine Action, freedom of expression in prison, closing weapons factories arming Israel, and for David Lammy to meet with their legal representatives. 

It has been dubbed the largest coordinated hunger strike in over 40 years, since 10 Irish Republicans starved to death in protest of their right to special status as political prisoners in 1981. Recent days have seen campaigning for medical attention for 20-year-old hunger striker Qesser Zurah, with Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana joining others in protest outside HMP Bronzefield, where Zurah was held. Three of the prisoners (including Zurah) have now received medical attention, but are expected to continue striking.

What does it say about the state of British democracy that individuals are risking their lives to advocate for their rights as political prisoners? Whilst Palestine Action cannot be de-proscribed until the conclusion of the ongoing legal challenge by the group’s co-founder concerning the ban, their other demands are far from unreasonable. Censorship of what prisoners are allowed to express, and what is permitted to be passed onto them, raises pertinent questions about the state of UK democracy. In a country which prides itself as a just and democratic nation, how can we rationalise political prisoners resorting to hunger strike to satisfy their largely reasonable demands?

Granting Palestine Action activists bail, as well as the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and communication with the Justice Secretary is imperative to the protection of basic civil liberties.

The initial proscription of the group raises questions about hypocrisy and censorship. Whilst far-right rhetoric prevails and rioters cause similar criminal damage under the guise of anti-immigration stances, how can we declare these groups to be lawful whilst Palestine Action are not? Criminal damage is, of course, a sanctionable offense, but proscribing an entire group whose protest has been largely peaceful reflects blatant bias against objectors to the government’s facilitation of atrocities in Palestine.

Stranger still is the lack of mainstream media coverage of the hunger strike. From the date it was announced, 20 October, until 10 December, the hunger strike was mentioned just twelve times across UK newspapers. Compared to the huge national — even international coverage — of the Irish Republican hunger strike in 1981, as well as the Suffragette hunger strikes between 1910 and 1914, there is a clear disparity.  

This calls into question the interests of British mainstream media; if they were willing to cover historic hunger strikes for causes then conflicting with the official government position, why are Palestine Action being met with almost radio silence? The notion that the British media can be considered a reliable and objective source of current affairs grows increasingly unconvincing.

The hunger strikes also call into question the state of the UK’s legal system. The ongoing detention of the prisoners, holding them on remand with their trial likely around 18 months away, is a cruel and senseless miscarriage of justice. This is far longer than the standard custody limit of six months. Doing so with the reasoning that Palestine Action is still proscribed is nonsensical; the most severe of the activists’ offenses being criminal damage and violent disorder does not warrant this. 

Furthermore, the group’s continued proscription 17 months on is equally illogical. The former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation (IRTL), Lord David Anderson KC, repeatedly recommended the introduction of time limits for proscription orders, as have those succeeding him: Max Hill KC and the current IPTL, Jonathan Hall KC. The government’s refusal to consider the consensus of specialist independent reviewers only serves to undermine their position.

More than 70,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel invaded Gaza after the horrors of 7 October 2023, following decades of displacement and military occupation. The Israeli military indicated that over 80% of Palestinians killed are civilians. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) found that Israel meets the legal definition of genocide, as laid out in the UN convention. How many more atrocities must be committed before activists like Palestine Action are recognised for the significance of their cause?

At the time of writing, many of the hunger strikers have been refusing food for more than 40 days, with two having not eaten in over 50 days. Experts have warned that they risk permanent organ and sight damage, if not death, if they continue. We cannot claim to be a democracy whilst our citizens contemplate martyrdom in protest of the government’s inaction. Granting Palestine Action activists bail, as well as the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and communication with the Justice Secretary is imperative to the protection of basic civil liberties.

Image: Wikimedia Commons