Quaker Boycotts

Conscience, Compassion or Coercion?

In principle there are three distinct ways of justifying a Quaker boycott: Confronted with a perceived evil, one may find it impossible to support, sanction or benefit from it. This would be a matter of CONSCIENCE – a leading of the Spirit. Alternatively, one may feel led to boycott as a gesture of fellow-feeling for victims. This would be an act of vicarious COMPASSION. Alternatively, one may deliberately withdraw support for the purpose of putting an end to the perceived evil. This would be openly antagonistic, and Friends have long maintained that COERCION leads naturally to escalation.

It is arguable that coercion is barely compatible with answering that of God in the offender, but otherwise it may be possible for a Quaker to embrace all three approaches simultaneously. For example, Meeting for Sufferings minuted in 2011:
“We are clear that it would be wrong to support the illegal settlements by purchasing their goods. We therefore ask Friends throughout Britain Yearly Meeting to boycott settlement goods … …”,
and earlier in the same minute:
“We have considered whether we should add nonviolent action to our witness – not as punishment or revenge, but as an external pressure to achieve change”.

Quaker boycotts go back to the early Friends. Did they too recognise the tension between Prophets and Reconcilers? Should Quakers support boycotts?
See boycott statements from various Yearly Meetings.