Jerry Vlasek Interview

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) is the name used by people who engage in direct action on the behalf of animals. Action which is non-violent and direct and furthers the cause of animal liberation may be claimed by the ALF as long as it is consistent with the organization’s guidelines. In January 2005, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security named the ALF a “terrorist” threat. Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a North American ALF Press Officer and Treasurer of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, took some time to answer a few questions regarding recent ALF activity.

1.What generally happens to animals that are liberated from a lab or farm? Is there a difference in treatment for animals that may have been exposed to some unknown agent?

Alf Stikes Again

Wild animal like mink and fox that have a chance of surviving on their own are typically released into the wild. many times thousands of such animals are freed, and it is not practical to try and find suitable homes or sanctuaries for them. Some may die from inadequate food or at the hands of humans, and some may be recaptured by their oppressors. But a chance at freedom is better than certain execution after a lifetime in a cage, which is what they face if they are not set free.

Domesticated animals are homed with those who may or may not be aware of their history; most are examined and treated by sympathetic veterinarians prior to placement. Many have been exposed to toxic agents or procedures; that is seldom a consideration in finding them homes. Humans are exposed to toxins all the time, consume toxic foods, breathe toxic air. Why worry about their non-human brethren’s exposure?

2. One particular instance that has brought particularly negative attention to Animal Liberationists is the incident in Yoxall, Staffs, UK where a woman’s remains were removed from a church. Attention was called to her since her family runs a guinea pig farm. However, doesn’t this action cross the threshold of violence that has been accepted by the ALF not to cause harm directly to humans? Is such an act something that the ALF, as a larger whole, would want to disassociate from?

Vlasek Injured

What human was harmed? Gladys? She’s been dead for quite a while. Her family? Perhaps. But then her family is murdering tens of thousands of innocent guinea pigs. There emotional distress can hardly compare, and they have the ability to stop their crimes and in turn, will suffer no more harm. They are not innocent, and they deserve whatever comes their way until they stop the needless killing for profit.

The action was completely within ALF guidelines, and the ALF has no intention (as far as I am aware) of condemning the action. Many people learned about the injustice and oppression that the Hall family is perpetrating, thanks to this particular action which was so widely publicized.

3. Under the umbrella of the animal rights movement, how large of a role does the ALF play in comparison to a group such as PETA? Do you think either group could exist in the manner it does today without the existence of the other?

They are complimentary. While PETA’s role is making the general public aware of certain issues, the ALF and others actually are liberating animals and convincing some perpetrators that the cost of abusing animals is not worthwhile. While teenage girls are very amenable to making changes when PETA educates them, other humans will not listen to this message, but do respond to the actions of the liberators. A frequent side effect of underground actions is the media coverage, as well as the documentation as to what goes on hidden from public view.

4. PETA has received a lot of attention via the media sensationalism surrounding its animal to human comparisons—such as the Holocaust on Your Plate display—as have the various ALF raids throughout the years. Do you think media sensationalism of animal rights is an effective manner of bringing attention to the issue? Falling under the old paradigm, “there’s no such thing as bad press.”

In general, yes. Many people exploit and abuse animals because they do not know about the issue, never have been forced to think about it, and PETA and others are good at making them do so. Many other people exploit and oppress animals because they can, and will likely never change their minds about the rights of non-humans to be free of human oppression. These people may change their actions, though, in response to ALF and other liberator actions.

5. A lot of critics suggest that violence doesn’t’ justify violence. How would you distinguish between the violence of ALF actions as opposed to that depicted by the media regarding the ALF? Do you think as the animal rights movement has grown older and expanded, the ALF’s view on violence has evolved?

ALF Poster

Why do you focus on violence by the liberators? What about the violence perpetrated against billions of innocent non-humans? What about the animal rights activists that have been killed by the abusers? Violence against those who torture and kill innocent beings for fun and/or profit is morally justifiable and indeed, mandated in certain cases. The ALF, as one organization, has chosen to abstain from violence against humans and non-humans, but others have not done so. Nelson Mandela, who himself used violence in the struggle against Apartheid, said “Non- violence is not a moral principle, but a strategy, and there is no moral goodness in using an ineffective weapon.” Unless one subscribes to speciesism (racism, sexism, homophobism, etc) then struggles for liberation all over the world and throughout time are comparable to the struggle for animal liberation. Violence has been used in all these struggles, and has and will continue to be used in the struggle on behalf of non-human animal liberation.