United Nations experts have issued a call for the protection of eight pro-Palestine activists on a hunger strike while detained in the United Kingdom. The hunger strike, initiated on November 2, underscores grave concerns about the treatment of the activists, who are challenging what they view as exhausted legal avenues for protest and remedy.
The health conditions of the activists have become a serious concern, drawing attention to reports of delayed healthcare access and insufficient medical oversight. The UN experts emphasize that hunger strikes are a “measure of last resort” and stress the U.K.’s obligation under international human rights law to ensure appropriate medical care. As detailed by the experts, the state’s duty of care is heightened in such instances, necessitating access to healthcare and the prohibition of retaliatory measures against the hunger strikers.
Of the eight prisoners, four have been identified as ending their hunger strikes due to deteriorating health. These individuals face various charges linked to actions that allegedly caused substantial damage to properties owned by Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense firm, and the Royal Air Force. Specific individuals such as Qesser Zuhrah and Heba Muraisi are among those who have been on the hunger strike, with Muraisi currently on her 55th day, evoking memories of the 1981 hunger strikes by Irish republican prisoners.
The prisoners have articulated five demands: an end to censorship, immediate bail, the right to a fair trial, and the dropping of terror-related charges, alongside calls for the UK government to divest from Elbit Systems. The broader context involves the UK’s classification of Palestine Action as a terror organization, a move that aligns with the definitions set out in the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000. This legal context has resulted in hundreds of arrests, including notable figures such as Greta Thunberg, who was temporarily detained for her public support.
The UN’s call for action can be seen as a response to concerns about the expansive application of terrorism definitions, which critics argue stifles legitimate protest. These developments have raised questions about the balance between national security and the rights of individuals to protest and express dissent, as reported in this report.