Washington State Senator Reintroduces Animal Rights/Ecoterrorism Bill

In January, Washington state Sen. Val Stevens re-introduced her proposed bill to increase penalties against animal rights and environmental extremists who attack animal, farm, or timber facilities.

Stevens introduced the bill in 2004, but it never made it out of committee. This time around, Stevens’ bill must be approved out of committee by March 2 or it will be effectively dead.

The bill would make ecoterrorism and animal rights terrorism punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

Washington Farm Bureau spokesman Dean Boyer told The Daily Herald that the extra penalties were needed, saying,

Many of these ecoterrorist acts are staged against agricultural facilities and definitely impact our members. Too often, nobody is ever caught and punished for these acts. If they are caught, we need to be sure there is significant punishment so they won’t do it again.

Jerry Vlasak, on the other hand, told The Daily Herald that the real terrorists aren’t people like him who believe its morally justifiable to kill animal researchers, but rather those who stick animals in cages,

If you want to talk about terrorism, we can talk about terrorism suffered by these animals in their cages.

The full text of the bill can be read here.


Arlington senator targets ecoterrorism. Jerry Cornfield and Yoshiaki Nahara, The Daily Herald, January 27, 2005.

The Despicable Jerry Vlasak

Earlier this year, Jerry Vlasak was denied entry to Great Britain where he planned to attend an animal rights convention. The UK was concerned that Vlasak might incite violence based on his history of advocating the murder of medical researchers.

The specific context of that concern was a statement Vlasak made at Animal Rights 2003 in Los Angeles. Numerous newspapers reported that Vlasak had said at that event,

I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many … I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.

This was a straightforward advocacy on Vlasak’s part, but instead of coming clean Vlasak decided to play word games. He wasn’t advocating murder, he claimed, he was simply making a factual statement about the likely effect of such a campaign of murder against medical researchers. Vlasak even put out a press release denouncing UK paper The Observer for suggesting otherwise. In that press release, Vlasak said,

I was outraged by Jamie Doward’s article in the Observer stating that I, a medical doctor who spends my entire life SAVING lives, is calling for or encouraging the assassination or killing of any being, human or non human. Mr Doward has libeled me and I am going to meet with an attorney to discuss my options. This just proves that in order for the government and the biomedical industry to continue making billions of dollars off the tax payers, they will go to any lengths (even smearing a doctor) in order to continue their needless and scientifically fraudulent experiments causing the horrific suffering, abuse, neglect, exploitation and death to millions of primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, birds and other animals.

Did Vlasak advocate murder? This is where things get a bit odd. In early October both myself and Brian O’Connor, who writes the excellent anti-animal rights blog Animal Crackers, received the same anonymous package in the mail. The package consisted of an audio CD along with a letter. The letter explained that the person sending the package had been in attendance at AR 2003 and was shocked at the things Vlasak said. So shocked, in fact, that it changed his/her mind to some extent about the animal rights movement. Moreover, the letter claimed that the quote from AR 2003 being widely circulated was simply the tip of the iceberg and that the rest of Vlasak’s comments — included on the audio CD — were far more damaging and needed to be more widely distributed.

To be honest, my first reaction was that this was likely a hoax. A bit of online research, however, turned up the fact that the audio recordings of the AR 2003 convention was made by a company that specializes in recording such conventions at hotels. Moreover, the voice on the audio sounded fairly similar to other recordings of Vlasak’s voice available on the Internet. Finally, the audio includes crowd reaction and questions and answers, so if it was fake, it was a pretty elaborate one. I figure I’m pretty small potatoes to go to such lengths. If Vlasak or anyone connected with him would like to dispute the authenticity of the recording, they are free to do so and I will certainly make such objections public. The recording, however, appears to be genuine.

You can listen to it here in MP3 format (you might want to right click on that link and save to your desktop and play from there).

A number of other sites have re-published the partial transcript of the 5 minute CD that the person who sent it included, but here’s a full transcript of the excerpt,

Vlasak: Well, just a brief comment about that. There’s a woman here in the United States who is serving, I think, a 20 year prison sentence for basically doing the same thing here in the United States. I think she took a ballpeen hammer and beat on the radar antenna of some fighter jet somewhere in some base. And she didn’t get exonerated and she is serving a very long sentence.

But what I was going to say is I think… First of all, for those of you who don’t know me, I am a former vivisector and I speak out against vivisection now. But that said, 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.

And I — you know – people get all excited about, “Oh what’s going to happen when – the ALF accidentally kills somebody in an arson?” Well, you know I mean — I think we need to get used to this idea. It’s going to happen, okay? It’s going to happen.

Female speaker 1: That’s just like the pro-life movement killing abortion doctors.

Vlasak: Absolutely. I think they had a great strategy going.

Female speaker 1: That ruined their movement, though.

Vlasak: It didn’t ruin their movement. Their movement is still out there.

Female speaker 2: I just have a question for you, and its not a judgment on what you just said. I’m just curious, do you think that you deserved to be murdered when you were vivisecting?

Vlasak: I think I was fair game. I was doing . . . What I was doing was wrong, and if I was murdered . . . I don’t have a problem with that. I mean, I was lucky because I educated myself. I became educated. Someone came up to me one day and told me about this. But I told many other people about it, and they haven’t been able – willing – to change.

And I, unlike Andrew who I like and respect, I don’t have a lot of faith in the human race and in people in general in our society. I think, in my experience, somewhere around 85 percent of all the people in our society will never ever change no matter what you do to them, no matter what you show them, no matter what you tell them. The only reason they will ever change is because they are afraid to keep doing what they’re doing.

My sister-in-law is a classic example. My sister-in-law wears fur, okay. She has a fur coat. My wife and I had spoken to her over and over and over again about the whole issue. Shown her the videos. We’ve shown her the pictures of the animals suffering. She doesn’t care. The only reason she does not wear her fur coat, and the only reason she does not go out and buy more fur coats over the years, is that she’s afraid somebody from PETA is going to throw red paint on her fur coat. She is afraid of that.

She told us. She goes, “The only reason I don’t wear my fur coat, the only reason I keep it in storage. . .”, and she won’t even take it out of storage, is because she’s afraid.

Female speaker 3: How do you make the decision about who you’re going to target, because . . .

Vlasak: Oh, I don’t know. I mean . . . I’m not going to do it, but I’m saying whoever would do that would very tactically select the people they think . . .

After reading the transcript and listening to the audio, I think it’s pretty clear why Vlasak apparently hasn’t pursued any action on his libel suit. If anything, Doward’s article failed to go far enough in detailing the Vlasak’s pathology.

In October, Vlasak appeared on an Australian debate program in which he reaffirmed these views, showing that he hasn’t changed his mind since AR 2003,

JENNY BROCKIE: So would you take a human life to save an animal life, is this what you are saying?

JERRY VLASAK: I am not saying that’s never going to happen.

JENNY BROCKIE: That’s pretty close to what you said in the quote.

JERRY VLASAK: Would I advocate taking five guilty vivisector’s lives to save hundreds of millions of innocent animal lives? Yes, I would.

Hmmm. So Vlasak said the that the Observer libeled him when it claimed he advocated murder. Then Vlasak reaffirms that he does indeed advocate murder. So Vlasak was lying earlier when he tried to whitewash his comments.

Wow, Jerry Vlasak lying — must be a weekday.


Kill scientists, says animal rights chief. Jamie Doward, The Observer (UK), July 25, 2004.

Dr Jerry Vlasak replies to media libel. Press release, SPEAK, July 25, 2004.

Activists Claim Geoff Kerns Is Source of Grand Jury Testimony Against Watson and Lynn

Over the past several months Allison Lance Watson and Gina Lynn have spent time in and out of jail over their testimony or refusal to provide such testimony to a Seattle grand jury. One of the questions raised by the grand jury calling them to testify is who had implicated them in a number of acts of animal rights terrorism. According to a number of animal rights web sites, animal rights activist Geoff Kerns is apparently cooperating with the grand jury, probably as part of a plea bargain.

Kerns has been arrested a number of times for animal rights related activities. According to a Fur Commission USA press release, Kerns was one of three minors arrested at a Washington state fur farm in February 1999. According to the FCUSA,

On Tuesday, when the protesters left the [Seattle Fur] Exchange [following a protest sponsored by the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade that led two arrests], the hapless troupe reached the fur farm where about 15 people donned masks and jumped the fence. Five were quickly arrested by on-the-spot policemen. Three out-of-state minors — Lindsey Parme, Kyle Salisbury and Geoff Kerns — and two adults — Kim Berardi and Nicole Dawn Briggs — were charged with second degree burglary and first-degree theft.

Kerns was arrested again on August 2, 2000 at an anti-circus protest at the Los Angeles Sports Arena. According to a No Compromise report on the protest,

Meanwhile, three activists, Michelle Dyrness, Pamelyn Ferdin and Geoff Kerns, staged a lockdown in front of the front doors with lockboxes. (Lockboxes are three foot, cylinder, metal tubes weighing about 25 pounds each.) The activists inserted an arm into each lockbox and locked themselves to each other.

. . .

Three of the five activists remain incarcerated ON A HUNGER STRIKE at Southwest LA Precinct and the 77th Precinct (Jerry Vlasak, trauma surgeon/physician/MD, at Southwest — Pam F. and Michelle D. at 77th).

Two of the five civil disobediencers were minors and released a few hours after they were arrested. They were ADL-LA activists Geoff Kerns and Jeff Van-Name.

When Allison Lance Watson was charged with perjury, prosecutors were required to hand over any grand jury testimony related to the perjury charge to her lawyers as part of discovery. Part of that apparently included Kerns’ testimony, which Watson and/or her attorneys passed on to other animal rights activists.

No Compromise has an edited version of Kerns’ testimony (they have removed all of the names). The grand jury is clearly focused on that 1999 incident, and provides the grand jury not only with who the driver was (who escaped arrest), but also provides the name of a person he claims could identify the others who participated in the raid. Even with the names redacted, this makes for very interesting reading (especially the item I’ve bolded near the end),

AUSA: So it’s your testimony that you don’t recall anyone involved? You don’t recall any person involved in any animal rights or anti-fur protest or activity–

GEOFF: I recall seeing a couple of people. Just people that I recognized from L.A.

AUSA: Who did you see?

GEOFF: I saw [BLANK7]. S/he was at the protest. And I don’t remember specifically seeing them there but I would imagine [BLANK8] was there.

AUSA: Who is that?


AUSA: Who else did you see that you knew?

GEOFF: I believe maybe [BLANK]. I think s/he might have been there.

… AUSA: Ready to resume?

GEOFF: Actually, some of the questions that you have asked, as of now, have brought some things up that I didn’t recall at first…

GEOFF: Yeah. See, at the hotel, there’s one other activist I can remember specifically. And that
would be [BLANK9].

AUSA: What do you remember about [BLANK9]?

GEOFF: I just remember that s/he was there, actually with [BLANK10].

GEOFF: If you could go over some of those questions again.

AUSA: Let’s focus on, anyone else that you recall being involved in the fur exchange protest?

GEOFF: [BLANK11]. S/he’s also from Los Angeles.

AUSA: Anyone else?

GEOFF: [BLANK11], [BLANK7], again, [BLANK8], and [BLANK1].

AUSA: Do you remember any of them driving up to the mink release with you?

GEOFF: I believe [BLANK1] might have been in the car with me.

AUSA: You said you were in the back?


AUSA: Where was [BLANK1]?

GEOFF: If it was her/him, it was next to me.

AUSA: You knew her/him from Los Angeles, right?

GEOFF: I had met her/him a few times. S/he was kind of a not friend.

AUSA: What did you talk to her/him about on the way up to the protest?

GEOFF: Everybody was kind of silent. There was music on in the car, I think.

AUSA: Do you recall that s/he was the [person] next to you?

GEOFF: Not clearly. It might have been her/him. I could say with a decent amount of certainty that it was her/him, but I wouldn’t want to bank a perjury charge on it.

… GEOFF: Look, I am trying to remember these things. A lot of them are things that I intentionally try to block out. I am trying to be honest here, clear all this up, and move on with my life. I am not involved with any animal rights group right now. I am working for a medical company trying to improve my life. I am giving you guys names, telling you, I mean.

JUROR: It just seems like you are protecting these people. You are protecting certain individuals that you shouldn’t be. You are too bright for that.

GEOFF: I am telling you who was in the car with me.

..GEOFF: And, I mean, I donÂ’t do well in jail. You know, IÂ’m not the kind of person that can go in there and deal with the fights and the bigotry and all that. ItÂ’s not easy on me. IÂ’m oh, God. And, I mean, I am claustrophobic. It scares the shit out of me.

GEOFF: I have a belief about government in general. I have a lot of beliefs. Believe me, I am not talking to you guys because I want to see these people go to prison. I am not talking to you because– I am not talking to you because I like you. I am not talking to you because I trust you. I am not talking to you for any other reason than if I donÂ’t, I could go to prison.

AUSA: …Is it because youÂ’ve seen them at a lot of meetings, therefore you trust them or–

GEOFF: Can they handle going to jail, have they been to jail before, have they done a considerable amount of time, are they willing to do something like that again. Most people are going to rat people out, because they donÂ’t want to go to jail. Can they handle it.

AUSA: Is that why you want to get out? You canÂ’t handle it when things get tough?

GEOFF: I canÂ’t handle jail. I can handle being questioned. I canÂ’t handle jail.

… GEOFF: I don’t remember how other people were dressed. I don’t remember if anybody had a mask. Like I said, I remember that [BLANK1] was in the car, and that is it. I am trying to think about conversations I had with [BLANK2].

JUROR: There was a protest going on as well as the mink release?

GEOFF: Right.

JUROR: Do you know how many people were involved in the mink release part?

GEOFF: I would estimate 15 or 20.

… GEOFF: … [BLANK2] told me that s/he had driven to pick those people up that had all run into the woods and later caller her/him. So, I mean, if s/he had gotten away with the rest of them, s/he I mean, I don’t think s/he would have done that. I mean.

… GEOFF: … And it was the police or the FBI that ended up arresting me. Seriously, there were a lot of things I can’t recall about it. I do know [BLANK2] told me later on that s/he drove to pick them up. S/he knows who they are.

… JUROR: Had you ever heard [BLANK2]’s name before coming up here?

GEOFF: I think I heard her/his name. I think [BLANK3] were friends of hers/his.

…JUROR: Are you active with animal rights right now?


JUROR: You are not associated at all?

GEOFF: I have completely disassociated myself from it. The only contact I have had with people regarding or who are involved in the animal rights movement has been through an arrest last July. It was for an old warrant. And pertaining to this. And after some of the questions, as I said, I was able to go back and clarify things.

…JUROR: And you said you disassociated yourself with the whole animal rights. WhatÂ’s the reason for that?

GEOFF: ThereÂ’s a number of reasons. I was finding myself getting in a lot of trouble. That was one thing. I didnÂ’t want to destroy my life. I didnÂ’t want to do all this stuff, even though my ideals were so strong. And, you know, I didnÂ’t want to keep going through that. A lot of the people I had met were not the kind of people I liked associating with. On top of that, I burned a few bridges. I stole things from an activist house in Utah. They trusted me to be there, and I stole things from them. I was still– I had stopped doing drugs and started drinking and falling into a crowd that glamorized theft from the rich. And I betrayed someone who was a good friend of mine. And I couldnÂ’t stand the torment of those people continually confronting me about that. And I totally fucked that up.

AUSA: How do you justify breaking into another activistÂ’s home and stealing from them for the cause?

GEOFF: I donÂ’t justify it. I donÂ’t justify it. I donÂ’t pretend to. Breaking into an activistÂ’s home, that wasnÂ’t related to the cause. That was because I was fucked up. That was because I was going through a lot of things and learning about you know, new philosophies on how wonderful it is to shoplift and steal from the rich. And I went and did it. I was an idiot. I screwed up and betrayed people. ThereÂ’s no justifying that. At the time, I justified it by thinking, these people are rich. ItÂ’s okay to take from them. I donÂ’t have money. They do.

… GEOFF: … As I said, wanted to really start living my life and not just living unquestioning the way that everyone taught me to. We were taught to spout off statistics that we didn’t know were true. We were taught to, you know, embellish things to make things look more tragic than they already were.

JUROR: And when you are saying that you were taught things, who was teaching you? Who was giving you the statistics and telling you what to say?

GEOFF: I mean, just everybody. Mainstream animal rights groups, they don’t say where they get their statistics or anything like that. And, you know, people just say, you know, if you make things seem more extreme than they are, people aren’t going to research it. They are going to believe it. And I don’t know. It’s– the whole thing. I mean, you’ve got to understand, I have had all this stuff drilled into my head all the time about, you know, don’t snitch, don’t name names, don’t say things. And you have to understand that the vagueness and all that comes from a deep sense that I am betraying people that I loved. This is so hard for me.

JUROR: That is the believable Geoffrey. That is what we wanted to hear.

… GEOFF: … I really don’t remember her/ him driving up there. The only person I remember was [BLANK1], and s/he was sitting next to me…

AUSA: Do you want a minute before we go on? I have put a stack of pictures in front of you. And they are labeled Grand Jury exhibits GK 1 through 13. Can you take a look at each one? If you know who the person is, tell us the name.

GEOFF: This one looks familiar. I don’t know who s/he is.

AUSA: Is that GK1?


GEOFF: This is the only one that looks familiar, I don’t know where I’ve seen him before. It was probably at the protest. This one looks familiar. I might have seen him in Salt Lake. GK5–

… AUSA: Do you know [BLANK3]?

GEOFF: No, I don’t, not personally.

AUSA: Okay.


AUSA: That’s the next one that looks familiar after GK5?

GEOFF: Yeah. GK10 is [BLANK1]. GK11, I think, is [BLANK5]. GK12 I don’t know. So these are the only ones that look familiar.

AUSA: Let me hand you three more exhibits… Can you take a look at each set of pictures and tell us if you recognize the person in that?

GEOFF: It could be [BLANK5]. I don’t know though.

AUSA: There’s four pictures. So take a look at the four.


AUSA: I believe you told us earlier that you recognized her/his build.

GEOFF: Definitely her/his build. I can’t recognize the face though.

AUSA: Which exhibit is it that you are talking about?

GEOFF: It’s GK14.

AUSA: What about GK15 and 16?
GEOFF: 15, I don’t really remember. Is that [BLANK6], actually?

AUSA: Who is [BLANK6]?

GEOFF: My old friend, [full name].

… AUSA: Would you look back at GK14 for a minute. That’s the one I think you thought was [BLANK5].

GEOFF: Could have been, yeah.

AUSA: Could you take a look and tell us if you think it is?

GEOFF: I think so, based on the build, but the face is really blurry.

AUSA: You believe it’s [BLANK5] based on what you can see?

GEOFF: Yeah. I think [BLANK5] wears glasses. And based on the build, the lack of any fashion sense. That’s serious.

… AUSA: Are these people expecting to hear from you as far as what you have said here to the Grand Jury?

GEOFF: [BLANK1] told me to talk to her/him about it. I have not talked to her/him in the past couple of weeks, but–

AUSA: But s/he asked you to tell her/him what happened here. Are you planning to do that?

GEOFF: No. I was thinking about that last week.

… GEOFF: Which organization?

AUSA: The animal rights organization that you were involved in.

GEOFF: I was involved in a number of them. But in general, with activism movements such as that, if you do something like what I am doing now, this is the general rules, snitches get stitches.

AUSA: Then there are consequences for you?

GEOFF: If anybody finds out, yeah.

AUSA: For example.

GEOFF: I don’t know. Get beaten. Get hurt really bad.

AUSA: Had you heard that before, had somebody said if you do that, this is what’s going to happen?

GEOFF: I mean, not specifically, not relating to this. But in general, that like I said, snitches get
stitches. I mean, shit, I kicked this kid in the face for doing the same thing in Long Island.

AUSA: So you do have some fear for your safety because of what’s happened here at the grand jury?

GEOFF: If anybody finds out, I don’t know what happens. If they do, yeah.

AUSA: If it’s any consolation to you, you haven’t snitched on anyone.

GEOFF: I have talked about [BLANK5].

AUSA: No, you haven’t. People showed you pictures of [BLANK5]. And you said, yeah, that’s [BLANK5]. And you said you heard s/he had picked up some people after the mink release. We already had that information.

GEOFF: It’s still snitching. The thing you got to understand, you don’t help them put people in jail. And if they didn’t have a use for it, for me coming up here and doing that, then they wouldn’t be bringing me up here.

… GEOFF: Right, but I picked her/him from that. I am not trying to protect her/him. If s/he was driving the car, why would I say s/he was not driving the car but pick her/him out there?”


Geoff Kerns snitches to grand jury. San Diego IndyMedia, August 28, 2004.

Geoffrey Kerns talks. No Compromise, September 18, 2004.

6 Arrested, 2 Hurt at LA Sports Arena Circus Protest. No Compromise, August 2, 2000.

Quick Arrest for bungling terrorists. Press Release, Fur Commission USA, February 23, 1999.

Jerry Vlasak Delivers Videotaped Speech to International Animal Rights Conference

Having been barred from entering the UK due to his statements justifying and supporting violence, animal rights activist Jerry Vlasak gave a videotaped speech to the 350 attendees at the Internatinoal Animal Rights Conference 2004.

Here are some highlights from Vlasak’s speech,

Our movement cannot be isolated in a vacuum. The animal rights movement has got to be viewed in a historical context. Our movement is no less important or radical than the fight against Apartheid or the fight against human slavery, fights against oppression in Algeria, Vietnam, Northern Ireland and other places all around the world.

We, like those freedom fighters who came before us are on the front lines, trying to educate a largely greedy, corrupt and violent society and to expose the needless suffering and agony which goes on daily inside abattoirs, laboratories and zoos; billions of animals suffer and die world wide.

. . .

The scientists who still use animals in their research are not only frauds, but are addicted to an outdated form of research. That Colin Blakemore for instance, who has sewn kittens eyes closed for fun and profit, is no more of a true scientist then the mad scientists in the monster movies we watched in the 50’s. Blakemore is not a doctor. Like most animal experimenters, he is simply a “wanna be” medical doctor who didn’t have the social skills nor the brains to make it through medical school. And those medical doctors who are performing experiments on animals are simply the instruments of a corrupt university system and the pharmaceutical industry.

. . .

In closing, I’d like you to ponder this thought when you get back home after the conference has ended and you are safe and sound in your homes and have a stomach full of tofu and rice; “If it were my mother, my child, my sister or brother inside an HLS lab or the primate labs at Oxford, what would I do to save them?

We do what we do because . . . .WE HAVE SEEN AND WE KNOW!

Odd enough, no call to boycott these drugs that can’t possibly work since they are based on animals rather than human beings.


Barred animal rights activist addresses conference by video. James Tapsfield, Press Association News, September 4, 2004.

Banned activists resorts to video. The BBC, September 5, 2004.

Dr. Jerry Vlasak’s Speech. September 6, 2004.

Vlasak Again Defends Violence

As if to re-emphasize why David Blunkett was right to bar him from traveling to Great Britain, Jerry Vlasak again defended the use of violence in the animal rights cause on British radio show.

In an interview with Radio 4’s World at One, Vlasak said,

I am simply saying that it [violence] is a morally acceptable tactic and it may be useful in the struggle for animal liberation.


Banned activist defends violence. Sandra Laville, The Guardian, August 28, 2004.

Great Britain Bans Vlasak

Great Britain this week followed through on earlier threats by banning U.S. animal rights activist Jerry Vlasak from entering the country to speak at a UK animal rights meeting. The British government cited Vlasak’s statements that justify and encourage animal rights violence.

At Animal Rights 2003, Vlasak told attendees,

I don’t think you’d have to kill — assassinate — too many … I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.

This summer at Animal Rights 2004, Vlasak said,

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.

In an episode of Penn & Teller’s Showtime show Bullsh*t! broadcast in April 2004, Vlasak said,

If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justifiable solution.

In July, Vlasak told British newspaper The Observer,

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

The British government also forbid Vlasak’s animal rights activist wife, Pamelyn, from entering the country. In both cases, the Home Office said that allowing the animal rights activists to enter Great Britain would not be “conducive to the public good.”

Vlasak plans to give his speech via videoconference.


Blunkett bars US animal rights activist from Britain. Colin Blackstock, The Guardian, August 26, 2004.

Kill scientists, says animal rights chief. Jamie Doward, The Observer, July 25, 2004.

Britain bans U.S. doctor over animal rights views. Reuters, August 26, 2004.