Quotes from Jerry Vlasak: Animal Defense League – Los Angeles Director
Mr. Vlasak is also North American Animal Liberation Press Office; Board member, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society removed April 2005; Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
I’m not a terrorist. I don’t think I’ve inflicted terror on anybody who didn’t deserve to have terror inflicted on them.necessary.
Quoted in Animal research fight gets increasingly violent, by David Ono, KABC [Los Angeles], Apr. 7, 2011.
All of these successful liberation struggles have always involved violence or the threat of violence. I would hope that hurting, killing or assassinating would not be necessary. I would say it would be morally justified if all other methods failed.
Quoted in Animal research fight gets increasingly violent, by David Ono, KABC [Los Angeles], Apr. 7, 2011.
He’s no different than those who marched the Jews off to concentration camps.
On former UCLA animal researcher Dr. Dario Ringach, who abandoned his work after receiving threats against his children. Quoted in Animal research fight gets increasingly violent, by David Ono, KABC [Los Angeles], Apr. 7, 2011.
The vast majority of animal research doesn’t produce anything useful for human beings. Even if it was useful, it isn’t justified. It is still immoral.
Quoted in Scientists rip animal protection activists, by Jennifer Harper, Washington Times, Apr. 10, 2008.
I think the suffering and abuse of animals in laboratories is a lot more severe than some kids having to climb down a ladder because there was a little smoke in their house. I mean, listen, if their father is willing to risk his family by continuing to torture animals knowing the consequences of his actions, then, you know, listen he’s not – I don’t think he’s treating his family as well as he could.
Interviewed by CNN, aired Aug. 4, 2008, following two firebombings on Aug. 2 directed at University of California Santa Cruz researchers, one of which forced a professor and his family to evacuate their home via a 2nd-floor fire escape.
This is historically what happens whenever revolutionaries begin to take the oppression and suffering of their fellow beings seriously, whether human or nonhuman. It’s regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments in this day and age.
In a statement issued by the North American Animal Liberation Press Office following two firebombings Aug. 2, 2008, directed at University of California Santa Cruz researchers, one of which forced a professor and his family to evacuate their home via a 2nd-floor fire escape.
Rosenbaum is not an innocent bystander; he is a guilty perpetrator of violence toward innocent beings, [and] if he won’t stop with intelligent discussion, there is every moral justification for stopping him using whatever means are necessary.
Quoted in Activists target professor, referring to an attempted firebombing of the car of UCLA professor and ophthalmology researcher Arthur Rosenbaum, The Daily Bruin UCLA, July 2, 2007.
If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animals and burning the place to the ground, that’s morally justifiable.
On stopping people who raise animals for fur or meat, quoted in Grand jury indicts 11 people allegedly involved in ecoterrorism, Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2006.
I said in that statement, and I meant in that statement, that people who are hurting animals and who will not stop when told to stop, one option would be to stop them using any means necessary and that was the context in which that statement was made. Sen. James Inhofe: Including murdering them, is that correct? Vlasak: Pardon? Inhofe: Including murdering them? Vlasak: I said that would be a morally justifiable solution to the problem.
Defending his statement to the Animal Rights 2003 National Conference, Los Angeles [see below] before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Oct. 26, 2005.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg: You are willing to say that somebody you don’t know, somebody’s kid, somebody’s parent, somebody’s brother, somebody’s sister, take that life, that’s okay? Vlasak: These are not innocent lives.
Addressing the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Oct. 26, 2005.
Are these people comparable to people that chop up animals in laboratories just to further their academic careers? Yeah, I think they’re all abhorrent in a certain way, yes, he said. The threat of violence would be another way to stop them and I would be behind that threat..
Quoted in Violence against sealers OK: activist, CBC News, Apr. 19, 2005.
Would I advocate taking five guilty vivisectors’ lives to save hundreds of millions of innocent animal lives? Yes, I would.
Speaking on Special Broadcasting Service radio, Australia, Insight, Oct. 12, 2004.
I am personally not advocating violence. I am simply saying that it is a morally acceptable tactic and it may be useful in the struggle for animal liberation.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s The World At One, Aug. 27, 2004.
I see the struggle for animal rights as no different from other struggles in history, such as against apartheid or slavery. Violence was a part of those movements and was both effective and morally justified.
In Animal rights activists plan training camp for militants, Telegraph UK, July 29, 2004.
I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective.
In Kill scientists, says animal rights chief. Fury as former surgeon calls for selective assassinations,The Observer UK, July 25, 2004.
I don’t think you’d have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.
In Kill scientists, says animal rights chief. Fury as former surgeon calls for selective assassinations,The Observer UK, July 25, 2004.
It won’t ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It’s going to happen sooner or later. The Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front — sooner or later there’s going to be someone getting hurt. And we have to accept that fact. It’s going to happen. It’s not going to hurt our movement. Our movement will go on. And it’s important that we not let the bully pulpit of the FBI and the other oppression agencies stop us from what we’re doing. They are the violent ones. They are the terrorists … we have to keep doing what we’re doing.
Animal Rights 2004 National Conference, Vienna, VA, July 8-12, 2004.
I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable. … I don’t think you’d have to kill – assassinate – too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. … I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, two million, 10 million non-human lives. An audience member then states that this would be the same as the pro-life movement killing abortionists. Vlasak responds: Absolutely. I think they’ve had a great strategy going.
Animal Rights 2003 National Conference, Los Angeles, CA. See also quote below.
I think there is a use for violence in our movement. And I think it can be an effective strategy. Not only is it morally acceptable, I think that there are places where it could be used quite effectively from a pragmatic standpoint. For instance, if vivisectors were routinely being killed, I think it would give other vivisectors pause in what they were doing in their work – and if these vivisectors were being targeted for assassination, and call it political assassination or what have you, I think if – and I wouldn’t pick some guy way down the totem pole, but if there were prominent vivisectors being assassinated, I think that there would be a trickle-down effect and many, many people who are lower on that totem pole would say, I’m not going to get into this business because it’s a very dangerous business and there’s other things I can do with my life that don’t involve getting into a dangerous business. And I think that the – strictly from a fear and intimidation factor, that would be an effective tactic.
And I don’t think you’d have to kill – assassinate – too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. And I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human animals.
Quoted in Who’s afraid of Jerry Vlasak? by Dr. Steven Best, July 2004. See also quote above.
I think we do need to embrace direct action and violent tactics as part of our movement … I don’t think we ought to be criticizing someone, whether we’re criticizing [them] because they’re writing letters, or whether we criticize them because they’re burning down fur stores or vivisection labs. I think we need to include everybody in that circle.
Animal Rights 2002 National Conference, Washington, DC, June 30, 2002.
Get arrested. Destroy the property of those who torture animals. Liberate those animals interned in the hellholes our society tolerates.
Internet post to AR Views list, June 21, 1996.
Quotes for ADL Website
http://www.animaldefense.com; as of July 17, 2003
The Animal Defense League is an above-ground animal rights group, but fully supports the great work done by the underground Animal Liberation Front (ALF) in freeing animals who are being tortured, exposing animal abuse and reducing the economic viability of animal abuse industries.
ADL-LA differs from many other animal rights and welfare groups in that we feel different tactics are warranted than have been widely used in the movement. While we acknowledge that many hands are needed on many oars, we think there are more effective strategies than writing letters, participating in boycotts, and holding signs. Each of these tactics has their place, and we use them as well, but we frequently risk our personal freedom in the form of civil disobedience to show the animal abusers in our midst that they may not continue business-as-usual. When arrested we regularly refuse to pay the government in the form of bail or fines, and we do not plead guilty to any of their charges; it is the animal abusers who are the guilty ones. We also do not accept probation as this limits our future effectiveness as activists. Though many ADL-LA members do not take part in C.D. or get arrested, we whole-heartedly support those that do and believe in the No Compromise philosophy outlined here.
