---

The United Nations claims that the purpose of Sustainable Development Goal 16, or SDG16, is to promote peaceful and inclusive societies and to provide access to justice for all. Hiding behind the rhetoric is the real objective: to strengthen and consolidate the power and authority of the “global governance regime” and to exploit threats – both real and imagined – in order to advance regime dominance.

The following are edited extracts from an article by Iain Davis titled ‘SDG16: Part 1 – Building the Global Police State’ as published by Unlimited Hangout.  His full article is well worth taking the time to read especially if you want to understand the evil lurking behind the façade of the UN’s “sustainable development goals.”  You can read Davis’ article HERE.

The United Nations (“UN”) claims the purpose of SDG16 is to: “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

The real purpose of SDG16 is threefold:

• empower a global governance regime,
• exploit threats, both real and imagined, to advance regime objectives; and
• force an unwarranted, unwelcome, centrally controlled global system of digital identity (digital ID) upon humanity.

Within the UN system, all governments – whether local, county, provincial, state or federal – are “stakeholder partners” in a global network comprised of a wide-ranging gamut of public and private organisations. The term that this worldwide amalgam of organisations often uses to describe itself is a global public-private partnership (“G3P”).  Many of these organisations are explicitly backed by or housed at the UN, and all of them are pushing digital ID as the key mechanism to achieve SDG16. In fact, establishing a global digital ID according to SDG16 is crucial for eight of the 17 SDGs.

Digital ID will determine our access to public services, to our central bank digital currency (“CBDC”) wallets, to our “vaccine” certificates – to everything, even the food and beverages we’re allowed to buy and consume.

In 2018, the UN identified Interpol as the law enforcement organisation that was “uniquely positioned to be the implementing partner of a number of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” This led Interpol to develop its Seven Global Policing Goals. Many of Interpol’s Global Policing Goals necessitate the type of surveillance that can most easily be enabled by introducing digital IDs and CBDCs.

Interpol has already teamed up with a variety of biometric digital ID companies, two of which (Idemia and Onfido, to be precise) played a major role in facilitating vaccine passports during covid-19 and more recently have been creating “digital driver’s licenses” – that is, biometric digital IDs – for several US states.

The current president of Interpol is the General Inspector of the United Arab Emirates  Interior Ministry, Maj Gen Ahmed Naser Al-Raisi. Worryingly, he has been accused of overseeing the torture of citizens from the UK, Qatar, Turkey, the UAE and elsewhere. This isn’t the first time that Interpol has been headed by questionable characters.  And, digging deeper as Iain Davis has done, you’ll find that Interpol’s alleged history of being led by criminals and torturers is only the most visible part of its corruption.

So, how does the protection of our human rights fit into all of this?  Well, human rights are not the same as inalienable rights.

Human Rights and Global Governance

Inalienable rights, unlike human rights, are not bestowed upon us by any governing authority. Rather, they are innate to each of us. They are immutable. They are ours in equal measure. The only source of inalienable rights is Natural Law, i.e., God’s Law.

A key document referenced by the UN Charter is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) which was first accepted by all members of the United Nations on 10 December 1948.

The preamble of the UDHR recognises that the “equal and inalienable rights” of all human beings are the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” After that, “inalienable rights” are never again mentioned in the entire UDHR.

Human rights, according to the UDHR, are created by certain human beings and are bestowed by those human beings upon other human beings. We are only allowed to exercise our alleged “human rights” subject to the diktats of governments, intergovernmental organisations and other UN “stakeholders.” Human rights are not inalienable rights or anything close to inalienable rights.

Under the UN’s system of “human rights,” human beings are not considered to have any inalienable rights. For, as the UN would have it, our alleged “human rights” can be observed only if we comply with the current “legal order.” That “order” is conditional. And it is subject to constant change.  What the UN calls “human rights” are not “rights” of any kind at all. They are government and intergovernmental permits by which our behaviour is controlled. Thus, by the UN’s definition, “human rights” are the antithesis of “inalienable rights.”

By the UN’s own admission, inalienable rights are the “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” Yet, the UN’s entire Charter-based human rights framework comprehensively rejects the principle of inalienable and immutable rights.

The UN Charter is, therefore, an international treaty that establishes a global governance regime which stands firmly against “freedom, justice and peace in the world.” All of the UN’s “sustainable development” projects should be understood in this context.

Under its Charter, the UN places nearly all executive power in the hands of five permanent members: the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.  There is nothing egalitarian about the UN Charter. The UN Charter is the embodiment and essence of centralised global power and authority.

Despite current geopolitical tensions, these countries unanimously agree not only on the role of the UN Charter but also on every facet of the UN’s touted “sustainable development.”

As we head toward the new multipolar world order, the UN’s permanent Security Council partners – most notably the Russian and Chinese governments – are calling for a “world order” based upon the “purposes and principles” of the UN Charter. In other words, they are avid promoters of a firmer “global governance regime” – in effect, a world dictatorship.  The supposed hostility between East and West does not extend to re-imagining the “global governance regime.” There is, instead, unanimous agreement to strengthen it.

Censorship as an Example of the Difference Between Human Rights and Inalienable Rights

The censorship of claimed “misinformation” and “disinformation” is a key part of SDG16. It claims, for example, to guarantee “public access to information” and to “protect fundamental freedoms.” Yet, perversely, this same SDG is being used by the UN and other groups to justify online censorship under the guise of addressing “information issues.” The “issue” is any information that challenges or discredits the institutions that the UN’s SDG16 aims to strengthen.

For instance, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, has pushed for increased social media regulation and for the UN and its allies to work directly with Big Tech. All of the world’s “Big Tech” corporations, like the UN itself, are G3P members.

Bachelet framed dis- and misinformation – any information contrary to the UN narrative – as symptoms of “global diseases” that undermine “public trust.”  Yet, stunningly, in the same breath, she, along with other UN officials, asserts that censorship efforts to counter disinformation should not infringe on the freedom of expression and other important “human rights.” They characterise disinformation and misinformation as being whatever negatively impacts “fundamental freedoms” and “human rights.”

For example, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a “fake news” resolution which explicitly frames “false information” as information that negatively impacts the “enjoyment and realisation of human rights.”  This resolution was sponsored by the US and the UK governments, both of which are notorious for spreading propaganda and for pushing for excessive censorship of independent media.

Clearly, the “enjoyment” of “human rights” does not extend to enjoying the alleged human rights of free speech or freedom of expression. Both of these are inalienable rights which cannot be removed or infringed by anyone or any institution. But, as “human rights,” they can easily be swept aside or redefined.