“Guantanamo North” Prisoners’ Hunger Strike

While the nation’s attention has lately been drawn to the injustice and illegality of detention in military prisons like Guantanamo Bay, much less has been said about attempts by prisoners in such institutions to take their threatened rights into their own hands. Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, and Hassan Almrei, prisoners in the Immigration Holding Centre of Millhaven Penitentiary in Bath, Ontario, the so-called “Guantanamo of the North”, are doing just that.

These men have not been informed of the evidence against them, nor have their lawyers. They have been denied medical care and access to an independent ombudsman to hear their complaints. Though not officially charged, they have been deprived of the basic human rights enjoyed by convicted criminals in the federal justice system. To protest their inhumane treatment, Mahjoub, Jaballah, and Almrei went on hunger strike, and for Jaballah it has been 71 days since he last ate.

In their fast they are drawing on a long tradition of nonviolent protest, used successfully in the past as a last resort of prisoners, deprived of any other public voice. The fast can be a tremendously powerful tool for rehumanization and reconciliation, but it must also be used carefully.

Gandhi, who undertook several fasts during his campaigns, recognized their potential and established a set of guidelines for fasting. First, he specified that an effective fast must be conducted by the “right” person, ideally someone familiar to the public eye and with enough personal clout to command attention. Second, Gandhi described the ideal audience as one of “lovers”, or people with such a relationship to the faster that they are emotionally affected by the actor’s suffering. Third, the demands being made should be reasonable and possible to grant. Fourth, a fast should be used only as a last resort, after other channels of negotiation have been explored. Finally, a fast has incredible nonviolent power, but only when consistent with the life of the person undertaking it.

It is not easy to evaluate the Millhaven prisoners’ fast in terms of these principles. Though they were relatively unknown, their fast has brought them some media attention and public support, at least in the Canadian press. The Canadian government may not quite fit the bill of “lover”, but with enough public pressure it could be convinced to see the prisoners’ plight. The demands for more just treatment seem do-able, and the men have already tried to achieve their goals through negotiation. The most questionable aspect seems to be its consistency with the lives of the actors. A fast by a nonviolent actor can be moving and effective, but one conducted by someone with a history of violence is more likely seen as hypocritical. The charges and evidence against them remain unclear, and all the government has divulged are suspected links to terrorist organizations. However, the detention in such a facility of innocent men would certainly be nothing new.

Ultimately, the outcome of the prisoners’ fast is yet to be seen. Prime Minister Harper has refused to meet with a delegation of their supporters, and maintains that their detention is lawful. But as the prisoners said in their letter to the Canadian public, “Sometimes there is only so much human beings should be required to accept before they raise their voice in peaceful protest”.

Read more about the prisoners’ hunger strike at The National Post

Read the prisoners’ letter to the Canadian public at The Dominion