In a letter to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, Quakers highlighted the important difference between nonviolent disruption and actions that threaten or inflict harm on people.
Oliver Robertson, head of witness and worship for Quakers in Britain, emphasised that nonviolent protest, and even acts of vandalism, should not be labelled as terrorism.
Nonviolent protest, and even acts of vandalism, should not be labelled as terrorism
- Oliver RobertsonMisusing anti-terror legislation in this way, Robertson argued, threatens core democratic freedoms.
“As Quakers, our faith sometimes leads us to act against unjust laws and actions, and be held accountable for that," wrote Robertson.
"There are Quakers who have participated in or supported nonviolent direct action for various causes, as part of living out their faith, but they have always done so with a firm commitment to nonviolence," he wrote.
“Proscription interferes with our freedom of religion, as well as the freedom of conscience and the right to assembly that all people have, regardless of their motivation for acting."
The letter notes that the Home Secretary's statement did not fully consider Palestine Action's core aim of preventing the export of arms linked to serious human rights violations.
Palestine Action's direct actions, such as those at RAF Brize Norton, have involved nonviolent interventions aimed at halting the UK's role in supplying weapons to Israel.
Polling shows broad public support for stopping UK arms sales to Israel.
“This is not an aim associated with extremism or violence; much to the contrary, it seeks to stop state violence being committed against Palestinians on an industrial scale," the letter reads.
To date no Palestine Action activists have been convicted of violent offences.
And just last year the government's independent adviser on political violence advised against proscribing the group.
John Woodcock noted that Palestine Action's activities did not meet the 'rightly very high' legal threshold for proscription.
Robertson warned that proscribing Palestine Action could set a dangerous precedent, potentially restricting the ability of other peaceful protest groups to operate.
He pointed to the long history of peaceful protest and civil disobedience as a powerful force for positive social change.
Oliver Robertson, head of witness and worship for Quakers in Britain, emphasised that nonviolent protest, and even acts of vandalism, should not be labelled as terrorism.
Nonviolent protest, and even acts of vandalism, should not be labelled as terrorism
- Oliver RobertsonMisusing anti-terror legislation in this way, Robertson argued, threatens core democratic freedoms.
“As Quakers, our faith sometimes leads us to act against unjust laws and actions, and be held accountable for that," wrote Robertson.
"There are Quakers who have participated in or supported nonviolent direct action for various causes, as part of living out their faith, but they have always done so with a firm commitment to nonviolence," he wrote.
“Proscription interferes with our freedom of religion, as well as the freedom of conscience and the right to assembly that all people have, regardless of their motivation for acting."
The letter notes that the Home Secretary's statement did not fully consider Palestine Action's core aim of preventing the export of arms linked to serious human rights violations.
Palestine Action's direct actions, such as those at RAF Brize Norton, have involved nonviolent interventions aimed at halting the UK's role in supplying weapons to Israel.
Polling shows broad public support for stopping UK arms sales to Israel.
“This is not an aim associated with extremism or violence; much to the contrary, it seeks to stop state violence being committed against Palestinians on an industrial scale," the letter reads.
To date no Palestine Action activists have been convicted of violent offences.
And just last year the government's independent adviser on political violence advised against proscribing the group.
John Woodcock noted that Palestine Action's activities did not meet the 'rightly very high' legal threshold for proscription.
Robertson warned that proscribing Palestine Action could set a dangerous precedent, potentially restricting the ability of other peaceful protest groups to operate.
He pointed to the long history of peaceful protest and civil disobedience as a powerful force for positive social change.