Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Protesters outside the US embassy in London, campaigning to shut the Guantánamo Bay prison camp.
Protesters outside the US embassy in London, campaigning to shut the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. Photograph: Guy Corbishley/Flickr/Getty Images
Protesters outside the US embassy in London, campaigning to shut the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. Photograph: Guy Corbishley/Flickr/Getty Images

​Why I'm fasting for ​Shaker Aamer

This article is more than 8 years old
Sara Pascoe

In our cosseted country we assume Shaker’s guilt because the alternative is too terrifying – that we have been complicit in detaining and torturing an innocent man

But he must have done something wrong,” he responds when I tell him what has happened to Shaker Aamer. “That couldn’t happen to an innocent British person.”

I am talking to Stephen, an imaginary composite of a few people I have talked to about Shaker since I was made aware of the last British man held in Guantánamo Bay. Stephen isn’t an idiot; he appears rational, his trousers are correctly fastened and he thinks of himself as “good” or “kind”. Stephen’s disbelief is natural – if he accepts that a normal, non-evil man like himself can be kidnapped, tortured and imprisoned indefinitely without evidence or trial, then the world is not as he thought. No one could be safe in a world where justice was side-steppable; it would be too terrifying. “Surely, the guy must have done something?”

Let’s pretend we’re talking about North Korea, Stephen. Would you buy it then? A North Korean citizen was doing some charity work abroad when he was arrested and taken to a compound in Cuba. Without any court case, hearing or serious accusation, he has been imprisoned for nearly 14 years. “If he was innocent, why didn’t they release him?” Good question, Stephen, but the trouble is North Korea let their citizen be tortured; worse, they were complicit and involved in his torture. They don’t want the guy to get out and tell everyone about it. It will make them look bad.

“North Korea ARE bad,” says Stephen. “Get me Amnesty on the phone immediately,” he cries. “I’m upping my direct debit to £6!” Stephen shakes his head while dialling. “They’ve no respect for life over there,” he mutters. “It couldn’t happen here.” I write: THESE WERE THE ACTIONS OF BRITAIN on a Post-it note and slide it in front of him. I’m worried I’ve confused him.

While I wait for Stephen to remember his bank details, I quickly read a book on Utilitarianism, because I’m a genius. Utilitarianism is a philosophy from the olden days exploring the idea that whatever is best for the majority is the fairest. The book uses an analogy of a village where everyone is really happy, properly having a great time, apart from one young boy who is tortured in a cellar. No one can see him, because that would ruin their happiness, but he undergoes all of their pain so the villagers don’t have to.

“What’s your point?” asks Stephen, who has finished on the phone and started reading my mind like Voldermort.

If you are a villager, it seems fair. You think the world is a good place, that your wonderful life does no one any harm. You might not even believe there was a boy in a cellar being beaten and waterboarded in exchange for your freedom from pain; you’re too busy dancing. “It’s only bad if you are that boy,” suggests Stephen and I hate his silly face. DON’T YOU GET IT? IF THEY CAN DO THAT TO ONE BOY THEY WILL DO IT TO ANYONE. IF ONE PERSON CAN BE LEGITIMATELY TREATED LIKE THAT, NOT ONE OF THE VILLAGERS ARE SAFE.

In a terrible scary world, when a plane can blow people up in their offices and taxi drivers can be beheaded on holiday, there has to be collateral damage, right? “It’s sad for that one innocent man and his family,” you decide, “but what choice did the politicians have with all this terrorism that’s been going about?” But the stolen life of Shaker Aamer did not protect you; it hasn’t saved you and your piglets from danger. Instead, it has eroded and undermined the laws that have safeguarded you from inhumane treatment. From punishment without trial. From incarceration without reason or an end date. From torture.

Shaker Aamer, after being cleared for release in 2007, is finally set to be returned to Britain in a couple of weeks’ time. For the campaigners, lawyers and politicians who have pressed for his freedom, this should feel like victory. But there is much apprehension – Shaker is currently on hunger strike, the recourse of someone bereft of any other form of control or defiance. Shaker’s ability to communicate with the world is severely limited by his captors, so he hurts himself by starving to protest his ongoing – YES, ONGOING, ACTUALLY, STEPHEN – mistreatment. Shaker has lost a great deal of weight; he is very weak, and we are worried. Until he is released and safe on British soil, a group of people are going to fast for Shaker, at least a day each in relay. If we can go without food for 24 hours, if we can raise awareness of what Shaker has undergone and is still experiencing, then perhaps he can eat and get stronger in anticipation of his release. Please join us if you feel robust and able.

What awaits Shaker at home, his country of residence, is up to you, Stephen – the press are wilfully ignorant of the facts when they can opt instead for drama, saucy headlines and, well, you know, racism. The people around you could be misled. We’re lucky in our first-world country; we’re cosseted villagers who believe our rulers are trustworthy. Once we accept that this can and did happen to Shaker, the parameters of our safe world disappear and the dancing stops.

As I tell you that you can pledge your support at fastforshaker.org.uk, Stephen’s trousers fall down – turns out they weren’t properly fastened after all. “It’s all a bit Kafka-esque,” he comments, and I wonder if he’s really been listening.

Most viewed

Most viewed