Now on ScienceBlogs: The Chicago Tribune: Telling it like it is about the antivaccine autism "biomed" movement

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination
   

The Scientific Activist

UK Animal Rights Extremist Mel Broughton Gets Ten-Year Sentence for Arson

The public face of Oxford's animal rights movement winds up in prison, where he belongs.

       

Search This Blog

This Blog and the Old Site



Pass It Along





submit to
reddit

The Scientific Activist

Profile

scientificactivistprofile.gif 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.

Subscribe via Email or RSS

Email Stay up to date on the latest from The Scientific Activist by email.

RSS See updates in real time with my RSS feed.

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Twitter

Other Stuff

Nick Anthis's Profile
Nick Anthis's Facebook profile





Add The Scientific Activist to your Technorati Favorites!

Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!


« Where Is This "Cult of Darwinism" I've Been Hearing So Much About? | Main | Stimulus Bill Moves America Closer to Practicing Evidence-Based Medicine »

UK Animal Rights Extremist Mel Broughton Gets Ten-Year Sentence for Arson

Category: OxfordUnited Kingdomacademiaanimal rights
Posted on: February 13, 2009 1:07 PM, by Nick Anthis

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.

Sphere: Related Content

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

1


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

2
And there's something wrong with being ideologically-driven is there?

That rather depends on whether you're ideologically driven to burn shit down.

Posted by: MartinM | February 13, 2009 7:39 PM

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM