In the UK, "militant" has overtones of "the militant wing of the IRA" - that is, the ones who used to blow people up, as opposed to their "political" wing.
A google search shows "militant" as meaning "confrontational" or "violent". There's obviously a big difference. I prefer to avoid the word "militant" for obvious reasons, given what PWME have been accused of. If people want to be verbally confrontational (as opposed to abusive) then I think that can be appropriate - but never violent.
I understand your concerns. The situation in the U.S. is similar. Perhaps folks recall the infamous "McCarthy Era" of the 1950's when one's liberty and livelihood were jeopardized by any accusation of being a "Commie". These tactics were used to intimidate troublemakers, whether Communists or not, into silence. The Hollywood blacklist, which destroyed many careers, is probably the best-known use of this.
Less well-known is the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. One of its provisions (found unconstitutional 20 years later) required labor union leaders to sign an affidavit that they were not supporters of the Communist Party. This had a major impact on the IWW (my former union), as many of its leaders refused to sign such odious documents.
The U.S, government doesn't care about "Commies" anymore. Now it's "self-radicalized" "material supporters of Terrorism", which can be anything at all, or absolutely nothing. Sending money to one's family in Somalia can be enough to end up in prison.
My point is that Our Dear Leaders will never hesitate to use any tools necessary to crush dissent, whenever that dissent challenges their power. It doesn't matter what dissenters do or don't do - our very existence is enough to make them apoplectic.
Eventually they always overplay their hand and end up discrediting themselves in a very public way, just as Sir Simon and pals are doing now. The more they foam at the mouth, the sooner it will be over, and we can get down to the business of real research and treatments.