Today, a court in Oxford found animal rights extremist Mel Broughton guilty of conspiracy to commit arson and sentenced him to ten years in prison for his crime. Broughton was arrested in 2007, after being linked to a failed arson attempt at Oxford's Templeton College (which followed a successful attack of Queen's College the previous year).
I have written at length about the animal rightists' campaign of fear and intimidation against Oxford University (check out previous entries for more)--a campaign that escalated in 2005, when the ALF declared that nothing owned by the university is off limits from a potential attack. Broughton has been the public face of the movement for much of this time, as co-founder of SPEAK, the primary animal rights organization operating in Oxford.
In early 2006, I conducted a brief phone interview with Broughton as part of an article I was writing for Oxford's Isis magazine. (There isn't a link to the individual article, but the full issue is available as a pdf, and my article starts on page 13.) The focus of the article (which was really just a fleshed out version of an earlier blog post) was on a recent SPEAK rally, so I called up Broughton to get his take on the rally and on his campaign in general. You can read more of what he said in the article, but I'd like to highlight the following passage in particular:
The protesters I interviewed were not particularly enthusiastic about the use of intimidation in the animal rights movement, putting many of them at odds with the movement's leaders, who openly advocate fear tactics and who focused much of their speeches at the rally on intimidating and taunting the police. None of those I spoke to openly agreed with the tactics of the more radical organisations, such as the Animal Liberation Front, which operate outside of the law, although one woman said that these techniques have been "both effective and ineffective." Broughton, who heavily stressed that SPEAK only engages in legal activities, shares this ambivalence. "Whether the actions of those organisations help us or hurt us, I don't know. Being involved in a legal process is becoming increasingly difficult. Normal activities are being illegalised." Although SPEAK does not openly support these actions, it also does not condemn them either.
How rich. Granted, the "legal process" Broughton referred to included sending threatening letters to the contractors responsible for Oxford's new biomedical research building and, even worse, posting photos online of the building's construction workers. Still, I'm not sure when he could claim he was operating within the law, given that he has a long history of domestic terrorism, having been previously arrested in 1998 when police found a bomb in the trunk of his car.
Clearly, Broughton is a dangerous, ideologically-driven man who needs to be locked up.




A postdoc by day and a scientific activist by night, Nick Anthis isn't letting his research in protein structure and function get in the way of defending scientific and social progress.







Comments
And there's something wrong with being ideologically-driven is there? Because holding opinions is certainly cause for concern. Think before you write instead of regurgitating government spin.
Posted by: Paul T. | February 13, 2009 5:34 PM
That rather depends on whether you're ideologically driven to burn shit down.
Posted by: MartinM | February 13, 2009 7:39 PM
Someone should tell these people that humans are animals too (according to Wikipedia)!
NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/
Posted by: notedscholar | February 15, 2009 12:28 PM
Paul T. "And there's something wrong with being ideologically-driven is there?"
You appear to have missed the "dangerous" part, Mel Broughton's ideology was not the problem, rather it was that his ideology drove him to carry out arson attacks on those who didn't share his ideology.
One of the dangers with "ideologically-driven" campaigns that employ tactics such ad arson and intimidation is that if they are seen to work and those employing them seen to get away with it in one circumstance other groups which find that their campaigns are proceeding slowly or not at all through democratic methods may be tempted to copy them. You might think that AR activists targeting scientists or Universities is OK, but what if it was anti-aboution activists targeting doctors or abortion providers, or pro-foxhunting activists targeting anti-hunt campaigners?
Posted by: Paul Browne | February 16, 2009 9:21 AM
Enjoyed this post and have linked to it from my own - thanks for the info on Broughton, you set it all out very clearly.
Posted by: Sophie D. | February 18, 2009 9:59 AM
Broughton is a typical ARE...lost the moral argument and failed to persuade a majority to his way of thinking, so resorts to thuggery and blackmail. Good riddance (for 5 years at least).
Posted by: watcher2 | February 18, 2009 10:09 AM
Human life and animals' lives matter. Buildings don't.
The problem most people have about Animal Rights is that they think humans GRANT Rights. Rights can only be DENIED - which is exactly the same for us humans. Rights are Rights, and slavery is slavery, whatever the species.
Posted by: J Lyons | March 2, 2009 6:03 PM
Humans and animals matter. Buildings don't.
The trouble with most people is that think that humans GRANT Rights. Rights can only be DENIED. Rights are Rights and slavery is slavery (i.e. denial of the Right not to be 'owned') - whatever the species.
Posted by: J Lyons | March 2, 2009 6:06 PM
Would you animal "researchers" do to yourselves and each other what you do to animals? Why not? Hmmm.. that's what I thought. So arson is not Ok but there is nothing wrong with torture, huh?...
You will be judged in the end. And probably come back as one of them....just remember that.
Posted by: Kat | April 24, 2009 7:14 PM