Every signature you add
drives real change

JUSTICE FOR AFRA. END THE SILENCE.

Sexual violence is not something we should continue to overlook, excuse or remain silent about.

Afra's reported experiences raise serious concerns about the safety of survivors, the fear surrounding speaking out, and the urgent need for accountability.

No survivor should have to suffer in silence. No one should be made to feel ashamed for speaking up, and no allegation of sexual violence should be dismissed without being taken seriously.

We are calling on the public to stand for justice, survivor protection, proper investigations and accountability through due process.

This is not about revenge. It is about justice. It is about ensuring that survivors are heard, protected and treated with dignity.

Sign the petition. Share it. Stand against sexual violence.

A survivor's voice should never be another thing society tries to silence.

Sytuacja w Zoo Łączna jest dramatyczna i głęboko mną wstrząsnęła. Z dnia na dzień, bez żadnego wcześniejszego ostrzeżenia, działalność ogrodu została wstrzymana, a egzotyczne zwierzęta zostały odebrane pod pretekstem złych warunków bytowych. Znam to miejsce i te zwierzęta, byłam świadkiem opieki oraz ogromnego oddania, z jakim traktowali je dotychczasowi opiekunowie. Decyzja o odebraniu zwierząt była nie tylko nagła, ale również głęboko niesprawiedliwa. Ochrona praw zwierząt i dbanie o ich dobrostan są kluczowe, jednak wszelkie procedury muszą być prowadzone w sposób transparentny i zgodny z prawem. Pozbawienie właścicieli możliwości obrony oraz brak jakiejkolwiek wcześniejszej komunikacji ze strony służb są sytuacją niedopuszczalną. Co więcej, na miejscu nie było żadnych mediów ani niezależnych obserwatorów, którzy mogliby obiektywnie potwierdzić rzekome zaniedbania. Warto podkreślić, że Zoo Łączna zawsze cieszyło się pozytywnymi opiniami odwiedzających, co potwierdza, że zwierzęta miały tam zapewnione dobre warunki.Zwierzęta egzotyczne to nie są zwykłe zwierzęta domowe. Wymagają one specjalistycznej opieki oraz specyficznego środowiska, które zapewniało im zoo. Nagłe wywożenie ich i umieszczanie w przypadkowych azylach lub tymczasowych schroniskach tylko potęguje ich stres i naraża je na ogromne cierpienie. To kluczowe, aby wszelkie działania były podejmowane z rozwagą, empatią i z myślą o realnym dobru zwierząt oraz ich stałych opiekunów.

Podpisz tę petycję, aby poprzeć Zoo Łączna w walce o sprawiedliwy proces, transparentność działań służb oraz ochronę zwierząt w ich prawdziwym domu. Twój głos może uratować te stworzenia przed stresem i traumą związaną z przymusową relokacją.

Кому: 

Президенту Кыргызской Республики Садыру Жапарову
Председателю Кабинета Министров Кыргызской Республики

От кого:

Инициативная группа предпринимателей Кыргызстана

Петиция:

Мы, предприниматели Кыргызстана, а также наши семьи и трудовые коллективы, требуем отставки Алмамбета Шыкмаматова с должности председателя ГНС.

Президент Кыргызской Республики Садыр Жапаров объявлял своим курсом вывод экономики из тени, борьбу с коррупцией и защиту прав инвесторов. Алмамбет Шыкмаматов был поставлен во главе ГНС на волне коррупционного скандала — как человек, который должен был этот курс исполнить. Спустя почти 2 года мы вынуждены констатировать, что вместо работы во благо государства, система под руководством Шыкмаматова продолжает строиться на коррупции, запугивании, давлении и взятках от бизнеса. 

Во время каждой проверки (и плановой, и внеплановой) сотрудники налоговой службы путем давления вымогают взятки, а предпринимателям регулярно начисляют незаконные штрафы.

1. Давление на бизнес при нынешнем руководстве продолжается — и это зафиксировано прокуратурой

За первые пять месяцев 2026 года органы прокуратуры выявили 105 случаев незаконного наложения штрафов на предпринимателей со стороны налоговых органов. Проверки показали, что налоговики накладывали финансовые санкции вопреки закону — в случаях, где Кодекс о правонарушениях предусматривает только предупреждение. По итогам прокурорского реагирования к ответственности привлекли 51 должностное лицо налоговых органов.

Происходит это на фоне действующего до конца 2026 года моратория от Президента Кыргызстана на внеплановые налоговые проверки — то есть нарушения допускаются вопреки прямому государственному курсу на защиту предпринимателей. 

Более того, в 2017 году на Шыкмаматова уже возбуждали уголовное дело по статье «Коррупция». Эпизод относился к 2011 году, когда он был аудитором Счетной палаты. Прокурор просил для Шыкмаматова 8 лет колонии с конфискацией имущества. В декабре 2017 года Первомайский районный суд Бишкека признал его виновным и назначил штраф в 5 млн сомов. Ровно через год — 20 декабря 2018 года ГКНБ резко прекратил уголовное преследование по причине «отсутствия состава преступления».

2. Заявленная реформа во многом оказалась имитацией

Флагманом цифровизации руководство ГНС называет электронные счета-фактуры. Однако само ведомство признаёт, что систему делали «впервые и в спешке», механизм несовершенен и его приходится полностью переделывать. Ответственность за сбои при этом перекладывается на добросовестных предпринимателей. 

Купив товар, бизнес платит поставщику цену вместе с НДС и затем на основании счета-фактуры вычитает этот налог из собственных налоговых обязательств — так устроена вся система НДС. Но если счет-фактуру поставщика позже признают недействительной (из-за его нарушений или из-за сбоя в самой системе), вычет у покупателя аннулируют. В результате добросовестный предприниматель, который реально купил и оплатил товар — доплачивает налог второй раз, да ещё и с пенями, начисленными задним числом. Реформа, заявленная как достижение руководителя ГНС, на практике обернулась новым источником рисков и поборов для бизнеса. 

3. Глава ГНС публично признал, что не гарантирует честность своего ведомства

1 октября 2026 года в Жогорку Кенеше на прямой вопрос, может ли он гарантировать, что сотрудники ГНС действуют честно, Алмамбет Шыкмаматов ответил: «Не могу». При этом в адрес предпринимателей то же ведомство применяет презумпцию вины, публично утверждая, что в 99% спорных случаев бизнес «действует в сговоре». 

4. Государственный аудит официально зафиксировал провал внутреннего контроля ГНС

Счетная палата по итогам проверки за 2025 год вынесла обязательное предписание из-за слабого внутреннего финансового контроля в ГНС и оценила риск непоступления средств в бюджет в размере 11,5 млрд сомов. 

Через ведомство проходят рекордные суммы, а внутренний контроль над ними государственный аудитор признает слабым. Большой оборот при слабом надзоре нигде не бывает нейтральным — получается, часть средств уходит мимо бюджета. Ведомство, администрирующее сотни миллиардов, официально признано неспособным уследить за собственными финансами, и это на фоне сотен незаконных штрафов, зафиксированных прокуратурой, и прямого признания главы ГНС, что за честность подчинённых он не ручается.

Реформа Президента

Реформу Президента не способен провести человек, выросший из той самой системы, которую нужно менять. В Кыргызстане — самой быстрорастущей экономике ЕАЭС — достаточно профессионалов новой формации, в том числе внутри самой налоговой службы, способных довести цифровизацию до результата и выстроить честное партнёрство с бизнесом вместо давления на него. Курс, объявленный Президентом, заслуживает исполнителей, которые его разделяют, а не имитируют. Пора дать им дорогу!

Подпишите петицию — поддержите бойкот вымогателям из ГНС!

Если вы житель Кыргызстана или бизнес, который сталкивался со взятками, коррупцией, незаконными начислениями, давлением или вымогательством при взаимодействии с налоговой службой — подпишите, пожалуйста, это обращение. Кыргызстан должен развиваться дальше с добросовестными руководителями и честными кыргызстанцами.

Мы требуем отставки Алмамбета Шыкмаматова и просим дать публичный ответ на настоящее обращение.

Инициатива предпринимателей Кыргызстана — обезличенная группа без четких лидеров, сознательно и намеренно. Предприниматель, публично пожаловавшийся на налоговую, остается с этой службой один на один, а как она умеет работать с неугодными, показывают даже официальные данные прокуратуры. Все знают, что помимо штрафов присутствуют угрозы, вымогательство и попытки задушить любое публичное высказывание. 

Поэтому за этим обращением стоит общая позиция многих. 

We, the undersigned, are tired of announcements without accountability. We are tired of administrative failures, unresolved backlogs and being asked to trust another government promise.

We oppose the proposed online asylum registration rollout announced on 11 October 2026, targeted for implementation by 10 November 2026.

Before government introduces another system, it must answer basic questions:

Who will verify applicants’ identities?

How will fraudulent and duplicate claims be detected?

What happens to applications that have already been rejected?

How long will people wait for decisions?

Who takes responsibility when the system fails?

These are questions government must answer publicly.

Home Affairs says the platform will improve verification and processing. Then publish the evidence of readiness, the budget, the safeguards and the staff capacity. A promise is not proof.

Registering someone online is not the same as deciding whether they qualify for asylum. Moving a queue onto a computer does not, on its own, resolve a backlog.

WE DEMAND:

STOP THE PROPOSED ROLLOUT pending public scrutiny and demonstrated operational readiness.

BRING THE PLAN BEFORE PARLIAMENT. Publish its legal basis, costs, safeguards and implementation timetable, and allow public submissions.

EXPLAIN THE REGISTRATION RECEIPT. State precisely what protection it provides, how long it remains valid and how fraud or misuse will be prevented.

FIX THE BACKLOG. Publish a funded plan with deadlines and monthly results.

ENFORCE THE LAW. Investigate fraudulent applications and document corruption. Carry out lawful removals once applicable processes are complete.

HOLD OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE. Identify who is responsible for delivery and what consequences will follow failures or corruption.
Anyone who commits a crime must face the law, regardless of nationality. Officials who facilitate fraud must face consequences too.

Our anger is directed at government’s failures. Our action is peaceful, organised and determined.

We demand effective border management, credible asylum decisions and a government that listens and answers.

We call on the President, the Minister of Home Affairs and Parliament to respond publicly to these demands before the planned rollout.

ONE MILLION SIGNATURES. NO MORE EMPTY PROMISES.

Sign. Share. Demand accountability.

Initiated by Hon. Siphiwe Mbatha

Source: South African Government News Agency, 11 October 2026:
https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/government-seek-court-guidance-asylum-ruling-introduce-registration-system

Petition to remove Ocean and Fisheries Portfolio from Minister Shane Jones and NZ First.

We, the public, believe that there is substantial evidence of breaches of public trust, ministerial rules, Cabinet rules, and the Coalition Agreement sufficient to justify the immediate removal of Minister Shane Jones from the Oceans and Fisheries portfolio.

The request is based on continuing concerns relating to:

1.      Breach of Cabinet rules. According to the official Govt and beehive website.

2.      Loss of confidence from the public. 

3.      Lengthy and well documented public perception of Conflict. 

Breach of Cabinet Rules as outlined below;

Rule 2.55 – Continues to 2.56 – 

In all of these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical and behavioural standards. This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional. Ultimately, all Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.

Recent instances where this minister has gone against rule 2.56.

1)      23rd March 2026. In a live interview, Shane Jones stated that Fisherman Matt Watson had small genitals and acted in such a way because of it.

2)      Earlier in February he called Darren Shields (Multi time world and national record holder) “Just some Weekend Spearfisherman)

3)      January he called Protesters at OOP, Snaperallas, Drama Queens, Instagram kings and queens and Yamaha-Kawasaki Hikoi Experts

4)      In August 2024, Jones referred to High Court Justice Cheryl Gwyn as a "communist judge"

2.60 - Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their personal interests and their public duty. Ministers must conduct themselves at all times in the knowledge that their role is a public one; appearances and propriety can be as important as actual conflicts of interest. Ministers should avoid situations in which they or those close to them gain remuneration or other advantage from information acquired only by reason of their office.

Instances where a perceived Conflict of Interest exists

1)      Brother – Trustee at Quota owner. Chair of Te Rūnanga Nui o Te Aupōuri – Who oversee ACE Quota and Aquaculture. Ko Tenei Matou | About Us. Financial report 2025 found here - https://www.teaupouri.iwi.nz/koteneimatou

2)      Son – Penetau Klescovic - General Manager at Te Aupouri (Same as above), According to Bio at Penetaui Kleskovic, Penetaui Kleskovic. Also Councillor in the Far North

3)      Wine & oysters meeting with fishing bosses
Within weeks of becoming Fisheries Minister, Jones met with senior seafood industry figures privately (Moana NZ, Sealord, Talley’s, Sanford etc.), which critics labelled a conflict of interest in policy influence.

4)      The New Zealand Herald article reported that Jones received a $5,000 donation from Aimex Group, - Aimex are the company contracted to install the Cameras. The director is also the owner of WestFleet, who was caught by these very cameras to be illegally reporting catch. He then campaigned against the very cameras he is paid to install. The same cameras that had an 80% failure rate in the first year. The same Cameras Jones is trying to remove OIA access to.

5)      Constant disclosed and strongly suspected undisclosed Political donations from Seafood Sector.

6)      Previous Chairman of Sealords 2001-2005

7)      chaired the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission (Te Ohu Kaimoana) from 2000 to 2004.

8)      When entering Politics in 2005, he instantly started receiving donations from Talleys and Sealords.

9)      In August 2024, Jones referred to High Court Justice Cheryl Gwyn as a "communist judge" during a private meeting with seafood industry representatives discussing Māori customary rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. – Reprimanded by Judith Collins

10) A 2025 poll cited by the Integrity Institute found that 85% of New Zealanders believe Jones cannot be trusted to manage fisheries impartially due to perceived loyalties to commercial operators – Ref Integrity Briefing: Fishy Influence – How the fishing industry captured Shane Jones

11) Over $100,000 in documented contributions from seafood companies and executives have flowed to Jones and his party, New Zealand First, since 2017.

12) Seafood giant Sanford Ltd chipped in $12,000 to NZ First during 2024, at the very time it was seeking government approvals for new salmon farms –

13) In 2017, Labour Refused to give the Fisheries Portfolio to Shane Jones and NZ First. Well aware of decades of industry ties and donations

14) Polls show that 57% say MPs who accept fishing industry money have no business being the Fisheries Minister. Such distrust is unprecedented – but then, so is Jones’ situation: he is arguably the most conflicted Fisheries Minister in modern NZ history. Ref Integrity Briefing: Fishy Influence – How the fishing industry captured Shane Jones

2.63 A conflict of interest may be pecuniary (that is, arising from the Minister’s direct financial interests) or non-pecuniary (concerning, for example, a member of the Minister’s family). A conflict of interest may be direct or indirect. Ministers must consider all types of interest when assessing whether any of their personal interests may conflict with, or be perceived to conflict with, their ministerial responsibilities.

Non Pecuniary Perceived conflicts of interest.

1)      We refer to Secion 2.60, statements 1 & 2. Regarding Shane Jones Son and Shane Jones brother, both being involved in senior roles where Quota and ACE are allocated.

2.65 A conflict may arise if people close to a Minister, such as a Minister’s family, whānau, or close associates, might derive, or be perceived as deriving, some personal, financial, or other benefit from a decision or action by the Minister or the government. Ministers must therefore be careful not to use information they access in the course of their official activities in a way that might provide some special benefit to their family members, whānau, or close associates. Passing on commercially sensitive information, or encouraging others to trade on the basis of such information, may also breach the insider trading regime.

1.      Wine & oysters meeting with fishing bosses
Within weeks of becoming Fisheries Minister, Jones met with senior seafood industry figures privately (Moana NZ, Sealord, Talley’s, Sanford etc.), which critics labelled a conflict of interest in policy influence.

2.      The New Zealand Herald article reported that Jones received a $5,000 donation from Aimex Group, - Aimex are the company contracted to install the Cameras. The director is also the owner of WestFleet, who was caught by these very cameras to be illegally reporting catch. He then campaigned against the very cameras he is paid to install. The same cameras that had an 80% failure rate in the first year. The same Cameras Jones is trying to remove OIA access to.

2.66 Similarly, it may not be appropriate for Ministers to participate in decision-making on matters affecting family members, whānau, or close associates, for example, by:

(a) attempting to intercede on their behalf on some official matter;

(b) proposing family members for appointments; or

(c) participating in decisions that will affect the financial position of a family member.

·       We refer to both Shanes Son and his brother who are both senior executives at Quota Holder and ACE holder entities. Thus, meaning rules that Shane Jones makes or promotes, directly impact the financial position of said family members.

2.68 Public perception is a very important factor. If a conflict arises in relation to the interests of family, whānau, or close associates, Ministers should take appropriate action.

·       Multiple and continual meetings with shareholders in NZ’s largest fishing companys, lobby groups and Quota holders. Mr Jones continues to not apologise and calls himself the apostle of the industry. In one instance claiming “I owe the seafood industry and substantial gratitude” – He has done nothing to take appropriate action here.

2.70 Ministers should take care, however, to ensure that they do not become associated with non-government organisations or community groups where:

(a) the group’s objectives may conflict with government policy;

(b) the organisation is a lobby group; or

(c) the organisation receives or applies for Govt funding

Instances

1)      Meeting and dinner with Seafood NZ, Lobby Group

2)      Meetings with Sealord and Seafood execs. Groups objectives

2.85 It is a valid and appropriate aspect of a Minister’s role to engage with representatives of non-government and commercial organisations. Care should be taken, however, to avoid creating a perception that representatives or lobbyists from any one organisation or group enjoy an unfair advantage with the government.

Further to 2.85 – Rule 3.10 Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to free and frank advice provided by the public service.

·       Jones and Co have never shown any consideration for any group other than the commercial sector and the lobby groups. Some examples below;

3.57 The relationship between Ministers and companies in the public sector differs from the relationship between Ministers and agencies in the public service. Although the nature of the relationship with a particular company will vary, some general principles are common to all.

(c) Avoidance of conflict between public duty and personal interests: As in all areas of their portfolio responsibilities, Ministers should take care to ensure that no conflict exists or appears to exist between their public duty and their personal interests

·       There has never been an occasion where the minister has taken any care or recourse to ensure or attempt to show that no conflict exists and specifically non appears to exist in the many instances when the appearance of conflict is prevalent.

Further to the above examples there have been previous precidents set by other ministers who have been asked to step aside, forced to step aside, or had portfolios removed for far less than what Minister Jones and NZ First have been doing blatantly and arrogantly right in the publics faces for decades.

Some previous examples are:

1. Michael Wood (2023)

As Transport Minister, Wood failed to properly disclose and manage shareholdings, including shares in Auckland International Airport.
He was initially stripped of the Transport portfolio.
When further undeclared shareholdings were discovered, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins accepted his resignation from all ministerial positions.
Relevance to Jones and NZ First: A minister lost portfolios and ultimately resigned because conflicts of interest were not adequately managed, even though there was no finding of corruption. The perception was there, however the perception of Jones and NZ First doing worse is far greater.

2. Judith Collins (2014)

Faced allegations of a conflict of interest over interactions with dairy exporter Oravida, where her husband was a director.
Prime Minister John Key publicly reprimanded her and described her as being on a "final warning".
Later in 2014 she resigned as a minister amid controversies that included questions about conduct and judgement.
Why relevant: Not a direct removal solely for conflict of interest, but a major example where perceived conflicts seriously damaged ministerial standing.

3. Clare Curran (2018)

Failed to properly disclose meetings, including discussions involving technology entrepreneur Derek Handley.
Was first removed from Cabinet and later resigned as a minister after mounting pressure.
Why relevant: Demonstrates that failures of transparency and disclosure can be sufficient grounds for loss of ministerial responsibilities. Jones and NZ First have a long history of undisclosed meetings with the fisheries sector.

In final

New Zealand Govt has previously removed ministers from portfolios when conflicts of interest or unmanaged perceived conflicts undermined public confidence. The same standard should apply consistently to all ministers. Especially looking at Michael Woods who was the closest example to Jones and NZ First, was under the same government, and was far less flippant than how Jones and NZ First act in relation to their conflicts.

As a woman residing in Canberra, I feel deeply troubled by Justice Andrew Muller's ruling on the appalling case of an 18-year-old girl who was violently raped. Justice Muller chose to issue a suspended sentence because the perpetrator had been in Australia for only six months. However, this is no excuse for leniency when addressing such a heinous crime. In fact, the perpetrator hails from Bhutan—a country known for its stringent laws against rape, making this ruling even more perplexing and disappointing.

Violence against women is a pervasive issue that continues to escalate in Australia. Each day, women across the country face the fear of becoming victims of such brutal acts, and it is disheartening when our justice system fails to protect us and hold offenders accountable. By giving this attacker a suspended sentence, Justice Muller not only failed the victim but also failed to uphold justice for women in our community, setting a dangerous precedent for future cases.

We call on the judicial authorities to seriously reconsider the actions of Justice Andrew Muller in this case. He should be removed from his role to prevent further injustice. This decision not only undermines the severity of the crime but also sends a distressing message to other perpetrators—that such actions might only face minimal consequences.

Furthermore, effective measures must be put in place to ensure that judicial rulings on violent crimes, especially those against women, are in line with community standards and ensure justice for victims. The lack of adequate punishment in such cases perpetuates a culture where women can be subjected to violence without the assurance of justice.

Stand with us in demanding accountability from those in power. It's time to send a clear message that our society will not condone or tolerate violence against women by holding those in authority to the highest standard of responsibility. Please sign this petition to advocate for the removal of Justice Andrew Muller and push for a judicial system that truly protects and serves its most vulnerable members.

Sign this petition to demand justice and protection for women everywhere.

In recent times, our community has been witnessing a growing concern regarding the presence of asylum seekers residing in our neighborhoods. This issue is personal to me as I have seen firsthand how some individuals exploit the asylum process, engaging in criminal activities that jeopardize the safety and well-being of our families.

Our beloved South African communities are feeling the strain of inadequate immigration policies that fail to address public safety and order. We believe it is imperative for the South African government to take swift and decisive action to relocate asylum seekers from residential areas to specially designated, government-managed facilities.

By relocating asylum seekers to dedicated centers, we can better monitor and support these individuals, ensuring that those in genuine need of protection receive it, while also maintaining the security of our neighborhoods. These facilities would not only offer a structured environment for asylum seekers but also provide essential services such as language classes, job training, and counseling to help them integrate or find solutions to their situations effectively.

Statistics and reports have highlighted incidents where individuals, not genuinely fleeing persecution, use the asylum system to conduct unlawful activities. This undermines both the credibility of our immigration system and the safety of local residents. According to recent studies, communities with higher densities of unmanaged asylum accommodations have reported increased crime rates and social tensions.

By taking this course of action, we advocate for a balanced approach that upholds humanitarian responsibilities while prioritizing public safety and community integrity. This is not only a matter of law and order but also of fairness to law-abiding residents who have worked hard to build their homes and communities.

We demand the government allocate resources to create these facilities and ensure that all processes surrounding asylum claims are conducted thoroughly and transparently, assuring both safety and compassion.

We urge our fellow citizens and policymakers to recognize the urgent need for reform in how asylum processes are managed. It is time to stand together and call for policies that protect and serve our communities effectively.

We cannot wait any longer. Our communities must come first. Please join us in demanding action from the government. Sign this petition to make your voice heard and bring about the change that ensures safety, order, and proper immigration control in South Africa.

Social media users should get to decide whether they want AI-generated content in their feeds.

AI-generated videos, images, voices, music, and posts are becoming increasingly common across social media. Platforms are developing better labels and detection systems, but labeling AI content is not the same as giving users control over whether they see it.

We are asking major social media platforms to create one simple account-level setting: “Hide AI-Generated Content.”

When enabled, that setting should filter identified AI-generated content from a user's recommended feeds, including short-form video feeds, discovery pages, suggested posts, and other algorithmic recommendations.

This is not a demand to ban AI-generated content.

Creators who want to make and share AI content should be able to do so. People who enjoy seeing it should be able to keep seeing it.

But people who do not want AI-generated content filling their feeds should have that choice too.

Platforms already personalize what billions of people see based on interests, follows, viewing behavior, and other signals. Users deserve a meaningful preference over something as fundamental as whether the people, voices, images, and stories appearing in their feeds were generated by AI.

We are calling on Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and other major social platforms to:

• Create a clear, account-wide option to hide identified AI-generated content.
• Apply that preference across recommended feeds, discovery surfaces, and suggested content.
• Make the setting easy to find and change at any time.
• Clearly label AI-generated content so users can make informed choices.
• Give users direct feedback tools when unlabeled AI-generated content gets through the filter.

AI is changing the internet quickly. User choice should not be an afterthought.

We should not have to abandon social media to avoid AI-generated content. We should simply be able to turn it off.

Sign this petition if you believe every social media user deserves the power to decide whether AI-generated content appears in their feed.

AI can have a place online. But users should have a choice about whether it has a place in theirs.

For decades, Sandspit Holiday Park has been a cherished getaway for families, a vital part of the local community, and a key contributor to our local economy. Its potential closure not only threatens these integral connections but the very fabric of our community's identity. Sandspit is more than just a park; it's a sanctuary and a beloved getaway. It offers all park users and visitors a place where happiness, connection, and mental well-being are fostered. 

The recent decision by Auckland Council and the Rodney Local Board to not advance a new lease for Sandspit Holiday Park was made without sufficient consultation of those most affected. Such a significant decision deserves transparency, open dialogue, and a fair process that includes the voices of park owners, leaseholders, residents, and the broader community. This petition calls on Auckland Council and the Rodney Local Board to provide a transparent explanation of its decision and to engage meaningfully with all stakeholders involved. 

The loss of Sandspit Holiday Park would also lead to a marked decrease in visitor spending, directly impacting local shops, cafes, and businesses that thrive on the patronage generated by visitors. This economic ripple effect could have far-reaching impacts, putting additional strain on our community. The park, in operation for over 80 years, has become a beacon of continuity and community, standing as a testament to our shared history and cherished memories. 

We urge Auckland Council and the Rodney Local Board to reconsider its decision, ensuring that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and considered. We believe that by reopening discussions and considering the long-term impact of their decisions, a more equitable solution can be found that preserves our beloved Sandspit Holiday Park. Sign this petition to show your support and help us keep Sandspit Holiday Park a vibrant part of our community for generations to come.

PLEASE NOTE: Change.org is a free platform. After you sign, a screen will appear asking for a financial donation or to 'chip in'. This money goes directly to Change.org to promote the platform, NOT to Sandspit Holiday Park or this campaign. If you want to support this petition for FREE, you can simply skip the payment page and choose the 'Share' option instead. Thank you for your support!

The Pentagon have said that the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, would be broadcast live. I am deeply troubled by the upcoming live stream of a state-sanctioned execution scheduled for the 3rd of December, which could be accessible to UK devices.

We should not allow the spectacle of a firing squad execution to reach our screens.  It is barbaric and will stir up an ugly mob mentality in a country that is already deeply divided, and will send a message to America that we condone televised murder.  Execution is not entertainment, but that is what it will become.  

Not only does it set a dangerous precedent, it is wholly inappropriate content for children and vulnerable people.  State sanctioned murder should never become a form of entertainment. I urge the UK government to take immediate action to block this broadcast in our country

Executions are the ultimate irreversible action and broadcasting them live trivializes the pain and suffering involved, turning it into a spectacle rather than a moment of reflection on human rights and the sanctity of life. The United Nations Human Rights Council has consistently condemned capital punishment, urging countries around the world to abolish it. The European Union, including the UK, takes a firm stance against the death penalty, believing in the fundamental rights of every human being to life and dignity.

Allowing this execution to be accessible on UK devices contradicts our shared values and violates our commitment to promoting human rights internationally. Broadcasting such events not only desensitizes viewers but also risks glorifying violence and disregarding the serious moral questions surrounding the death penalty.

Technology allows us unprecedented access to information and entertainment, but with great power comes great responsibility. It is our duty to ensure that this power is not misused to promote or normalize brutality.

I am calling on the UK government to act swiftly and decisively by implementing technology that blocks access to this execution stream. By doing so, we send a powerful message that we reject the commodification of human suffering and stand firmly against the death penalty.

Please join me in urging the UK government to protect our screens and our values. Sign this petition to demand a prohibition on the live streaming of this and any other execution to UK devices. Together, we can take a stand for humanity and decency.

Families across California are living in fear. Armed, masked federal agents are carrying out enforcement operations in our neighborhoods, near our schools, and at our workplaces. Parents are afraid to take their children to school. Workers are afraid to go to their jobs. Neighbors are afraid to buy groceries. No one should have to risk being detained, separated from their family, or harmed just to live their daily life.

When fear keeps people indoors, the consequences go beyond safety. Families lose income, fall behind on rent, and run out of food. Our response has to protect people both from enforcement and from the hardship that follows.

Our Demands

1. Declare a state of emergency.
We call on the Governor and California officials to formally declare a state of emergency. This would:

• Unlock state funding and resources for affected families.
• Coordinate state, county, and local agencies in one response.
• Support schools, health services, and emergency housing and food assistance.

2. Issue a stay-home order for affected communities.
No one should be punished for staying home to protect themselves and their families. We call on the Governor and the Legislature to:

• Protect workers from being fired or disciplined for absences tied to enforcement activity in their community.
• Ensure no one loses public benefits because they missed an in-person appointment.
• Expand remote and phone options for state and county services.

3. Let children stay home without penalty.
If parents are afraid to send their children to school because armed agents could put their safety at risk, children must have the option to stay home. We call on the California Department of Education and local school districts to: 

• Excuse these absences with no penalty to students or families.
• Provide remote learning and make-up options.
• Protect school funding so districts are not punished for lower attendance.

4. Rental assistance and housing protection.
Families who cannot work or leave home safely must not lose their housing. We call on the Governor, the Legislature, and local governments to: 

• Pause evictions for nonpayment tied to enforcement-related loss of income.
• Fund emergency rental assistance that is open to families regardless of immigration status.
• Bar late fees and penalties for affected tenants during the emergency.

5. Strengthen and expand legal and community resources.
California must improve existing resources, fund new ones, and make sure every community member knows they exist. We call on the Governor and the Legislature to: 

• Improve existing resources. Review and strengthen current legal aid, rapid-response, and know-your-rights programs so they are accessible, accurate, and available in every language our communities speak.
• Expand funding for legal services. Provide emergency funding to increase access to immigration attorneys, legal screenings, and representation, especially for detained and at-risk community members.
• Provide sample risk assessment charts. Publish clear, plain-language guides that help people understand their potential risks based on their current immigration status, and what steps they can take to prepare. These should be reviewed by qualified immigration attorneys and updated as policies change.
• Publish guidance for locating loved ones. Provide step-by-step instructions on how to find a family member or friend who may be in ICE custody, including how to use the ICE Online Detainee Locator System and where to turn for help when someone cannot be found.
• Make sure everyone knows these resources exist. Fund outreach through schools, clinics, community organizations, faith groups, local media, text alerts, and social media, in multiple languages and accessible formats.

Our Call to Action
We are asking you to sign, share, and show up. Sign this petition to demand a state of emergency, a stay-home order, and real protections for children and families. Then take one concrete step: donate, volunteer, or sign up for a delivery shift.

Nonprofits and aid providers: step up.
If you are a nonprofit, community organization, or legal or aid provider, we urge you to provide rental assistance, emergency funds, legal support, food, and other direct aid to affected families. Coordinate with other groups so help reaches everyone who needs it.

Neighbors: show up.
If you are not at risk, you can help. We ask community members who are not vulnerable to enforcement to volunteer for grocery delivery, errand running, and school pickups and drop-offs for families who cannot safely leave home. A bag of groceries left at a door can keep a family safe and fed.

Donate. Give to a trusted local organization providing rental assistance, legal support, or food to affected families in your community. 

Our communities keep California running. We must keep them safe.

An Open Letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the United States Department of Defense

We, the undersigned people of faith, representing diverse religious traditions and moral convictions, raise our voices in profound moral objection to the Pentagon’s decision to livestream the scheduled execution by firing squad of Nidal Malik Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of murdering 13 people and wounding 32 others in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.

We do not minimize the horror of that tragedy. We honor the lives lost, hold the wounded and survivors in our prayers, and recognize the enduring grief carried by families, fellow service members, and the Fort Hood community. Their suffering deserves our deepest compassion, our unwavering support, and our enduring commitment to justice.

But justice must never become a spectacle, and the power of the state must never be confused with the moral authority to entertain the public with death.

The decision to broadcast an execution raises profound questions about the values we wish our nation to embody. What purpose is served by inviting the public to watch a human being put to death? What lesson is taught when the machinery of government turns an execution into a public event? And what does it say about us when the deliberate taking of a human life becomes something to be witnessed on a screen?

As people of faith, we believe that human dignity does not depend upon innocence, popularity, religion, or the nature of a person’s crimes. We can condemn an act of horrific violence without surrendering our own moral responsibility. We can seek justice without celebrating death. And we can stand with victims and survivors without turning another human being’s death into a public spectacle.

Our sacred traditions differ in their teachings about capital punishment. Yet across those traditions runs a powerful and enduring call to humility, compassion, restraint, and reverence for human life.

Across our diverse traditions, we find teachings that challenge us to respond to wrongdoing without surrendering compassion, to exercise power with restraint, and to uphold human dignity. For people of many faiths, the worth of a society is measured not simply by how it punishes wrongdoing, but by how faithfully it upholds its deepest moral commitments when confronted with wrongdoing of the gravest kind.

The question before us is not whether Nidal Malik Hasan should be held accountable for his crimes. The question is whether our government should turn his death into a broadcast.

We believe it should not.

Transparency in government is essential. Accountability matters. But transparency does not require the public display of an execution. Accountability does not require a livestream. And deterrence, whatever its merits in this debate, should never become an excuse to normalize public exposure to state-sanctioned killing.

We are particularly concerned about the message such a broadcast sends to a society already saturated with images of violence. Our children and young people deserve a culture that teaches respect for human dignity, not one that risks presenting death as a demonstration of governmental strength. Our military deserves to be recognized for its service, discipline, courage, and commitment to protecting life, not placed at the center of an event that risks reducing an execution to a spectacle.

We therefore call upon the Department of Defense to reverse its decision to livestream this execution and to refrain from using the death of any person as a public demonstration or instrument of spectacle.

We further call upon our elected officials, religious leaders, and communities of conscience to speak clearly about the moral responsibilities that accompany the exercise of state power. We ask people of faith across traditions to join us, not to excuse violence, not to diminish the suffering of victims, and not to abandon the pursuit of justice, but to insist that our response to violence must not diminish our own humanity.

The measure of our humanity is not found in our willingness to watch another person die. It is found in our willingness to defend human dignity, even when doing so is difficult, unpopular, or uncomfortable.

We call upon our nation to choose justice over spectacle, dignity over dehumanization, and conscience over the normalization of death as public entertainment.

As people of faith, we believe that the dignity of human life is not ours to discard when it becomes inconvenient. Our moral witness requires us to say clearly, courageously, and together.

We invite people of faith, religious organizations, clergy, and all people of conscience to add their names to this statement.

Signed,

Rev. Dr. Neil G Thomas

CLEAR DFW

Una Declaración De Conciencia: Personas De Fe
Rechazan La Transmisión En Vivo De Una Ejecución.
El Asunto

Carta Pública al Secretario de Defensa Pete Hegseth y al Departamento de Defensa de
los Estados Unidos

Nosotros, las personas de fe que suscribimos esta carta —en representación de
diversas tradiciones religiosas y convicciones morales—, alzamos nuestras voces para
expresar nuestra profunda objeción moral ante la decisión del Pentágono de transmitir
en vivo la ejecución programada, mediante un pelotón de fusilamiento, de Nidal Malik
Hasan. Esta persona, ex psiquiatra del Ejército fue condenado por asesinar a 13
personas y herir a otras 32 en el tiroteo de Fort Hood ocurrido en 2009.

No restamos importancia al horror de aquella tragedia. Honramos las vidas perdidas, y
tenemos en nuestras oraciones a los heridos y sobrevivientes, y reconocemos el dolor
persistente que tienen las familias, los compañeros del ejército y la comunidad de Fort
Hood. Su sufrimiento merece nuestra más profunda compasión, nuestro apoyo
inquebrantable y nuestro compromiso constante con la justicia.

Sin embargo, la justicia nunca debe convertirse en un espectáculo, y el poder del
Estado jamás debe confundirse con la autoridad moral para entretener al público con la
muerte.

La decisión de transmitir una ejecución plantea preguntas profundas sobre los valores
que deseamos que nuestra nación tenga. ¿Qué propósito se cumple al invitar al público
a presenciar la muerte de un ser humano? ¿Qué lección se imparte cuando el aparato
gubernamental convierte una ejecución en un acto público? ¿Y qué dice de nosotros el
hecho de que la privación deliberada de una vida humana se convierta en algo que se
contempla a través de una pantalla?

Como personas de fe, creemos que la dignidad humana no depende de la inocencia, la
popularidad, la religión ni la naturaleza de los delitos cometidos por una persona.

Podemos condenar un acto de violencia atroz sin renunciar a nuestra propia
responsabilidad moral. Podemos buscar justicia sin celebrar la muerte. Y podemos
solidarizarnos con las víctimas y los sobrevivientes sin convertir la muerte de otro ser
humano en un espectáculo público.

Nuestras tradiciones sagradas difieren en sus enseñanzas sobre la pena capital. Sin
embargo, por todas nuestras tradiciones tenemos el llamado poderoso y perdurable a
la humildad, la compasión, la moderación y la reverencia por la vida humana.
En nuestras diversas tradiciones encontramos enseñanzas que nos desafían a
responder ante las malas acciones sin perder la compasión, a ejercer el poder con
moderación y a defender la dignidad humana. Para las personas de fe, el valor de una
sociedad no se mide simplemente por cómo castiga las malas acciones, sino por la
fidelidad con la que mantiene sus compromisos morales más profundos al enfrentarse
a actos ilícitos de la mayor gravedad.

La cuestión que se nos plantea no es si Nidal Malik Hasan debe rendir cuentas por sus
crímenes. La cuestión es si nuestro gobierno debería convertir su muerte en una
retransmisión pública.

Creemos que no debería hacerlo.

La transparencia gubernamental es esencial. La rendición de cuentas es importante.
Pero la transparencia no exige la exhibición pública de una ejecución. La rendición de
cuentas no requiere una transmisión en directo. Y la disuasión —cualesquiera que sean
sus méritos en este debate— nunca debe convertirse en una excusa para normalizar la
exposición pública a una muerte provocada por el Estado.

Nos preocupa especialmente el mensaje que tal retransmisión enviaría a una sociedad
ya saturada de imágenes de violencia. Nuestros niños, niñas y jóvenes merecen una
cultura que enseñe respeto por la dignidad humana, no una que corra el riesgo de
presentar la muerte como una demostración de fuerza gubernamental. Nuestras
fuerzas armadas merecen ser reconocidas por su servicio, disciplina, valentía y
compromiso con la protección de la vida, no verse situadas en el centro de un
acontecimiento que corre el riesgo de reducir una ejecución a un espectáculo.
Por ello, instamos al Departamento de Defensa a que revoque su decisión de transmitir
en vivo esta ejecución y a que se abstenga de utilizar la muerte de cualquier persona
como una demostración pública o un espectáculo.

Asimismo, exhortamos a nuestros funcionarios electos, líderes religiosos y
comunidades guiadas por la conciencia a pronunciarse claramente sobre las
responsabilidades morales que conlleva el ejercicio del poder estatal. Pedimos a las
personas de fe de todas las tradiciones que se unan a nosotros —no para justificar la
violencia, ni para restar importancia al sufrimiento de las víctimas, ni para abandonar la
búsqueda de justicia, sino para insistir en que nuestra respuesta a la violencia no debe
disminuir nuestra propia humanidad.

La medida de nuestra humanidad no reside en nuestra disposición a presenciar la
muerte de otra persona, sino en nuestra voluntad de defender la dignidad humana,
incluso cuando hacerlo resulte difícil, impopular o incómodo.

Llamamos a nuestra nación a elegir la justicia frente al espectáculo, la dignidad frente a
la deshumanización y la conciencia frente a la normalización de la muerte como
entretenimiento público.

Como personas de fe, creemos que no nos corresponde desechar la dignidad de la
vida humana cuando esta resulta inconveniente. Nuestro testimonio moral nos exige
decirlo con claridad, valentía y unidad.

Invitamos a las personas de fe, a las organizaciones religiosas, al clero y a todas las
personas guiadas por su conciencia a sumar su nombre a esta declaración.

Firmado,
Rev. Dr. Neil G Thomas
CLEAR DFW

Animals who survive neglect deserve to stay safe. But in Missouri, the law can leave the door open for the same person to do it again.

Under Missouri law, animal neglect — failing to give an animal adequate food, water, shelter, or health care — is a misdemeanor. A first offense carries at most 15 days in jail and a $750 fine, and a court can waive those fines entirely if the owner shows the neglect has been fixed. Even after a second or third conviction, neglect is only a Class B misdemeanor, with a maximum of six months in jail.

Missouri does have one important safeguard. If a court believes an animal would be neglected again, it must not return that animal to the person convicted. But that protection is tied to the animals in the case. Missouri's animal cruelty laws do not include a clear, enforceable ban on owning or caring for animals in the future for people convicted of repeat neglect.

That means someone can lose one group of animals and simply acquire more.

I've worked in animal rescue in Kansas City, and I've seen how devastating neglect is. Animals depend entirely on people for food, shelter, medical care, and safety. When that trust is broken, they cannot speak up for themselves — and no animal should have to suffer before the system recognizes a pattern it has already seen.

Before lawmakers return to Jefferson City in January, we are calling on the Missouri General Assembly — and Rep. Greg Sharpe, who sponsored a 2026 bill to update Missouri's animal neglect law — to introduce and pass legislation that:

1. Allows courts to order clear, time-limited bans on owning or caring for animals after repeat or serious neglect convictions, with review procedures and real penalties for violating them.

2. Strengthens consequences for people convicted of neglect more than once.

3. Requires consistent tracking and public reporting of animal neglect cases and their outcomes, so repeat offenders don't slip through the cracks.

This is not about jailing someone for a single mistake they quickly fix. It is about stopping the same people from neglecting animal after animal.

Sign this petition and tell Missouri lawmakers: an animal should not have to suffer repeatedly before the law steps in.

Under the current “park revitalization,” the city of Dana Point is planning to chop down over 70 mature trees in Lantern Bay Park - 45 Torrey pines (native to SoCal, rare), as well as 31 stone pines, known for their umbrella canopies. In the midst of this heatwave, it's hard to imagine removing these majestic trees when we need their shade and beauty more than ever. Not to mention that these trees make up the iconic vista Dana Point is known for.

Based on this proposal from the October 6 council meeting, an arborist only recommended removing two of the 45 Torrey pines. Yet the proposed plan would remove the entire grove - as well as the stone pines which are very healthy. The plan states, "The removal of the grove is proposed for design reasons rather than tree health." It seems likely that the trees are being sacrificed for more open sight lines and additional event space for the hotel – since this redesign will be entirely funded by the Marriott (but the city is responsible for maintaining it).

The residents don't want this.

According to the survey (found on pages 34-38 of the proposal), 71% of the residents said they want to keep it as is or add MORE trees. An additional 143 residents wrote to the city council before the meeting on October 6 to speak out against the removal of these trees. For many of us, the trees are the heartbeat of the park. Proposals, yoga, pickup games, birthday parties, piñatas, gender reveals, quiet afternoon picnics: so many memories have been made in the shade of these trees. 

This is a hasty decision. 

The city wants to act immediately because of the Marriott's construction schedule. The harbor had to do extensive biological assessments prior to construction. To date, there has been no mention of any biological assessments regarding the removal of these trees. 

Additionally, the city was provided with just one proposed plan from the hotel, and its goals don't align with those of the residents. A sub-committee (Council members Pagnano and Frost) are now looking into an alternative; let's make sure they know we want to keep the trees.

The trees help our fight against climate change.

-These trees serve as habitats for many local wildlife species. Wintering monarchs use these groves during migrations and raptors and other birds roost in its canopies.

-They provide oxygen and clean the air.

-They provide much needed shade, especially in a time when we are seeing temperatures soar, reducing the heat island effect in urban areas.

-As El Niño approaches, the trees' deep root systems prevent mudslides and stabilize coastal bluffs. Their roots act like "rebar" in the hillside, holding the soil together when heavy rain hits.

- Large, old trees sequester massive amounts of carbon. Cutting them down releases that stored carbon back into the atmosphere, accelerating climate change in a way that young seedlings cannot undo. 

Great horned owl at Lantern Bay Park, photo credit to Kathy Brillheart

Our parks are for the people - and they should not be controlled by corporate interests.

Show our city and council members that we want a more thorough review of this park.  By signing this petition, you're telling the city to slow down and listen to the feedback from the residents.  No one is against all improvements at the park. But the proposed plan is rushed, and it lacks the depth and research a well-planned park deserves. 

Let's make a sound, clear decision and protect our trees. 

Sign now to save the trees at Lantern Bay Park. 

Annie Altman gave her deposition on August 18, and under the protective order she gave permission for it to be fully released 10 days later.

In her own words from her YouTube channel 1st hour deposition video: 

“Wearing my Dad's fleece

Grateful to share this and also upset to once again have my voice blocked, as there are another 7 hours I consented to have been released in August.

Gave my deposition on August 18, and gave permission for it to be fully released 10 days after per the protective order. Currently still only allowed to share this first 40 minutes.

Please know that I have two active cases. Both are publicly filed and available to read. This deposition was for my childhood case.

Trust case: 25SL-PR02320

Childhood case: 4:25-cv-00017-ZMB

Love, Annie”

🔗 You can watch the full first hour of Annie’s deposition here on YouTube: https://youtu.be/akjrfwYPvy8?is=ltD2MluTyg_9mVEO

This deposition is Annie’s voice, her experience, and her childhood case, and she has been clear that she consented to its release.

This does not only affect her. When testimony in a publicly filed case stays hidden even after the person speaking has agreed to release it, it sends a message that other survivors and families can still be shut out of their own story. It makes it harder for the public to understand what is happening in cases that are already on the record, and it reinforces the feeling that access and power are not equal for everyone.

On behalf of Annie Altman, I am calling on the court to unseal and allow the release of the full deposition she already consented to share in Ann Altman v. Sam Altman, case 4:25-cv-00017-ZMB, consistent with the protective order. If there is no legal basis to continue blocking her own testimony, then it should not remain blocked. The public should be able to hear the full context, not a small fraction of it.

If you believe people should not have their own words withheld after they have clearly consented to release them, please sign. Help demand transparency, consistency, and the right to let Annie’s full voice be heard.

Annie has already done the hardest part. She sat for the deposition. She answered the questions. She consented, on the record and in her own words, to let the rest of it be heard. What remains blocked is not a secret she is trying to keep. It is her own account of her own childhood, held back even after she asked for it to be released.

Most people who sign a petition will never have to decide whether to put their family history under oath. They will never have to watch part of their testimony go public while the rest stays sealed. They will never have to explain, again, why they still cannot share the full record of a case that is already filed. Annie is living that. Every day the remaining hours stay withheld is another day her consent is treated as optional.

If the protective order allows release and she has given permission, the public should not be left with a fragment. Survivors and families watching this case should not have to wonder whether their own words will also be narrowed to what someone else decides is enough. Transparency here is not a favor. It is the minimum ask consistent with what she already agreed to and what the cases already put on the record.

Sign if you believe a person who has testified and consented should not have to keep asking for the rest of her own voice. Share it if you think the full deposition, not only the first hour, belongs in the open. The court can still unseal what Annie has already authorized. Until it does, the record stays incomplete, and so does the chance for anyone reading this to hear her without the cut.

Love and solidarity are not enough on their own. A signature is a small, concrete way to say the blocking should end. 

Words may inspire but only action creates change 🤍

#RememberJerryAltman

#JusticeForAnnie

Thank you for supporting Annie!

Most Sincerely,

Emma Katherine (Survivor Advocate and Podcast Host - 🔗https://youtube.com/@imaginationpodcastofficial?si=TNGjHWwXM31aq1cv 

To reach out, please email me at:

[email protected]

or

[email protected]

🔗 Follow Annie:

X: https://x.com/anniealtman108?s=21

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/anniealtman108?rpxt=MXF3MTg5amlsaDlpdA==