Language defines thought, and thought informs behaviour. To use the two words in the same sentence like that is to treat the two concepts as equivalent, and to promote their equivalence in future.
Activism and terrorism are often one and the same. I don't think it's unfair to describe 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks as forms of activism — not that this in any way justifies the attacks — nor to apply the 'terrorism' label to many self-described activists (e.g. Anonymous with their computer hacking)
Most contemporary terrorists (Islamic extremism being the most salient example) are not terrorizing people for the fun of it. They want to bring about political or social change. The 9/11 terrorists objected to U.S. foreign policy, specifically its support for Israel and continued presence in Saudi Arabia. Terror is just a campaigning tool.
I don't think politicians are too far off the mark when they describe certain contemporary activists as terrorists. As I say, it's a very thin line, and plenty of contemporary activists resort to terror tactics.
Applying that experience to the sentence in question (and probably because I am not as vigilant as you in detecting attacks against freedom), I read it to distinguish activists who would perhaps be wearing a faux-bomb as protest against security measures from terrorists who would be wearing a real bomb watch.
I look forward to your well reasoned response.