Latest news with #MinaKim
The Star
20 hours ago
- Business
- The Star
US spy chief Gabbard says UK agreed to drop 'back door' mandate for Apple
FILE PHOTO: A view of a signage outside an Apple store in London, Britain, October 11, 2024. REUTERS/Mina Kim/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Monday the UK had agreed to drop its mandate for iPhone maker Apple to provide a "back door" that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens. Gabbard issued the statement on X, saying she had worked for months with Britain, along with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance to arrive at a deal. U.S. lawmakers said in May that the UK's order to Apple to create a backdoor to its encrypted user data could be exploited by cybercriminals and authoritarian governments. Apple, which has said it would never build a so-called back door into its encrypted services or devices, had challenged the order at the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The iPhone maker withdrew its Advanced Data Protection feature for UK users in February following the UK order. Users of Apple's iPhones, Macs and other devices can enable the feature to ensure that only they — and not even Apple — can unlock data stored on its cloud. (Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Kate Mayberry)
New Statesman
21-07-2025
- Politics
- New Statesman
The new racism of the British right
Photo by Mina Kim / Reuters What does it mean to belong to a nation that doesn't recognise you? If you've spent any time on British political X in the last few days, you've likely seen a video of GB News US Correspondent Steve Edginton interviewing people in a pocket of South London about their relationship to British identity. The segment is part of a wider documentary titled Yookay vs Britain: How immigration transformed a nation. But one moment in particular has captured public attention: a young black man passionately articulating his experience and sense of belonging. He is asked by Edgington about Britain and Britishness, and talks about south London, about Stockwell and Clapham, and how he was born in Britain and it is his 'home'. When asked about Alfred the Great, the Duke of Wellington and Churchill, he is a bit unsure of himself but basically chirpy. This is someone speaking with genuine cheer about where he is from. And the video should have been seen as a powerful example of authentic human expression. Instead, it has become a Rorschach test for the anxieties of the political right about culture, identity and race. As Harrison Pitt put it 'he is anything but assimilated' and 'associates 'Britain' with its most conquered, colonised, YooKay areas' as opposed to its 'host people'. One young man in south London has obliviously become the personification of a perceived immigration emergency – and crisis of British nationhood. For some time now, multiculturalism has been drifting to the centre of right-wing political discourse. Mass migration, cultural fragmentation, and identity politics have made conversations around integration deeply contested. These disputes have spawned the 'Yookay' meme Pitt referred to, an ironic shorthand for the nation some believe Britain has become: deracinated, multicultural, its ancestral roots torn up or decayed. And this is why, in some quarters of the political right, we're seeing the rise of what could be called 'aesthetic citizenship' – the idea that one's claim to national belonging isn't measured by shared values, civic participation, or contribution, but by how well you conform to a dominant aesthetic defined by speech, dress, tone, posture, even emotional register. The young man in the video didn't 'fit the part'. He was confident. He wore streetwear. He spoke in Multicultural London English. He was expressive, unapologetically himself. For some viewers, that alone disqualified him from true British citizenship – not on moral or civic grounds, but on aesthetic ones. This doesn't align with the 'model minority' trope – someone like Rishi Sunak, for instance, who embodies a version of Britishness that's polished, palatable, and deferential to traditional norms. No one would brand Sunak as 'Yookay' or question whether he belongs. The backlash reveals something deeper: some people don't actually want the integration of minorities; they want assimilation. To participate in British life isn't enough. To be proud of Britain and call this place your home isn't enough. You must perform a specific version of Britishness – soft-spoken, composed, restrained and possibly middle-class – to be considered truly one of us. And there is a growing danger that we are drifting into a form of racial – or more precisely, aesthetic – essentialism. This is a worldview that judges belonging not by shared commitment or civic identity, but by whether someone acts, speaks, or dresses like the children of the English shires. This ignores a crucial historical fact: many non-white Britons are second- or third-generation citizens, raised in homes shaped not by afternoon tea and Enid Blyton, but by diasporic memory, migration trauma, religious conviction, and postcolonial resilience. These are not moral deficiencies. They are the consequence of distinct class trajectories and intergenerational cultural hybridity. But more importantly, none of this precludes love of country. None of it disqualifies someone from national loyalty, public service, or a desire to belong. You can wear a puffer jacket and love Britain. You can speak Multicultural London English and still believe in the Crown. You can be a Pentecostal and sing the national anthem with sincerity. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe And this is precisely why aesthetic essentialism is so dangerous. It refuses to acknowledge the complexity of modern Britain. It tells a young man from Brixton, who may deeply love this country but doesn't speak in clipped RP, that he is not one of us. This is not to say that one cannot raise legitimate concerns about aspects of urban youth culture. Critique has its place. But increasingly, these critiques are being used to mask a deeper racial hostility. Yes, the interviewee in the viral clip displayed a shaky grasp of British history. But let's be honest: how many white Brits in Brixton – or anywhere else in the country – have opinions about King Alfred or the Duke of Wellington? Would their ignorance be used to question their Britishness? The real issue isn't knowledge. It's framing. The clip is being used to pathologise a young black man's entire presence, while ignoring broader systemic failures – such as the shortcomings of the British education system in teaching a cohesive and inclusive national history in the first place. But perhaps that's unsurprising. The segment forms part of a larger documentary titled Yookay vs Britain – a framing that is inherently antagonistic. From the outset, it positions multiethnicity as a threat to 'real' Britain rather than a constituent part of it. The version of Britishness valorised by parts of the right isn't even reflected in most white British citizens. Most people don't speak Received Pronunciation, attend evensong, or read Kipling. So what is the standard – and who gets to set it? One wonders, too, how these same critics view white radical progressives: people born and raised in Britain who are hostile to the monarchy, embarrassed by empire, and deeply critical of British values. Their dissent is tolerated, even celebrated, because their aesthetic still 'fits'. This exposes the core issue. We don't have a shared definition of Britishness. What we have instead is a fragmented Britain, where each subculture – liberal, conservative, urban, rural – has its own imagined standard of who qualifies as authentically British. And that, I would argue, is the greater threat to national cohesion than anything captured by the word 'Yookay' – or than any young black man in south London. [Further reading: Anarchy in the 'yookay'] Related
The Star
19-06-2025
- Health
- The Star
British lawmakers to vote on landmark assisted dying law
FILE PHOTO: A protestor holds a placard as they gather outside the parliament as British lawmakers debate the assisted dying law, in London, Britain, November 29, 2024. REUTERS/Mina Kim/File Photo LONDON (Reuters) -British lawmakers will vote on Friday on whether to proceed with a bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people, in what would be the biggest social reform in the country for a generation. Last November, lawmakers voted 330 to 275 in favour of the principle of allowing assisted dying, paving the way for Britain to follow Australia, Canada and other countries, as well as some U.S. states. Now, after months of scrutiny, amendment and emotional debate, the bill must clear another stage of voting to keep it on the road to legalisation, a process that could still take months. A vote against would stop it in its tracks. The Labour lawmaker who has proposed the new law, Kim Leadbeater, said there could be a reduction in the number of members of parliament who support the bill on Friday, but she was confident it would still be approved. One member of parliament who supports the legislation said there were about a dozen votes between those in favour and against, with a number yet to declare their position. Dozens of lawmakers earlier in June signed a letter to the leader of the House of Commons saying that there had not been enough time to debate the details of such a consequential law change. Leadbeater said her biggest fear was that if the legislation was voted down, then it could be another decade before the issue returns to parliament. The issue was last considered in 2015 when lawmakers voted against it. "It works and it is safe, and it provides dignity to terminally ill people," she told reporters before the vote. "This is not an either or when it comes to palliative care or assisted dying. It is about choice for people." PUBLIC SUPPORT Opinion polls show that a majority of Britons back assisted dying, and supporters say the law needs to catch up with public opinion. But, since the initial vote, some lawmakers say they are worried the bill's protections against the coercion of vulnerable people have been weakened. Under the proposed law, mentally competent, terminally ill adults in England and Wales with six months or fewer to live would be given the right to end their lives with medical help. In the original plan, an assisted death would have required court approval. That has been replaced by a requirement for a judgement by a panel including a social worker, a senior legal figure and a psychiatrist. Lawmakers have also raised questions about the impact of assisted dying on the finances and resources of Britain's state-run National Health Service and the need to improve palliative care. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's Labour government is neutral on the bill, meaning politicians can vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Lawmakers will hold a final debate on the legislation on Friday morning before a likely vote in the afternoon. If it passes, the legislation will be sent to the House of Lords, parliament's upper chamber, for further scrutiny. (Reporting by Sarah Young and Andrew MacAskill; Editing by Andrew Heavens)
The Star
28-04-2025
- Business
- The Star
M&S tells warehouse agency staff to stay home as cyber incident continues
FILE PHOTO: Passersby walk past a Marks & Spencer store near Marble Arch on Oxford Street, in London, Britain, December 5, 2024. REUTERS/Mina Kim/File Photo LONDON (Reuters) - British retailer Marks & Spencer told agency staff at its central England distribution centre to stay at home on Monday, after it stopped taking online orders following a cyber incident last week. Shares in the company, one of the best known names on Britain's shopping streets, were trading down 2% on Monday, having lost as much as 8% since April 22 when it said it had been grappling with a cyber incident for a few days. M&S told agency staff who usually work at its Castle Donington distribution centre near Derby not to come in, according to a person familiar with the situation. Agency staff are used when the warehouse is at its busiest. About 200 people were told not to come in, said Sky News, which first reported the story. An M&S spokesperson said on Monday there was no further update on the cyber incident following a statement on Friday which announced it was stopping orders from its website and app as part of its "proactive management" of the incident. The chain, which has about 1,000 stores across Britain, makes around one third of its clothing and home sales online. It has said it is working with experts to resolve the issue. Investec analyst Kate Calvert said that the longer it took for online sales to resume, the worse the hit would be for M&S. "There will be a short-term profit impact without a doubt," she said. M&S, which sells upmarket groceries as well as clothing and home products, posted bumper Christmas sales in January and is due to publish full-year results on May 21. Nathaniel Jones, VP of security at cyber security group Darktrace, said the fact that M&S had taken systems offline suggested it was likely a ransomware-related event. "Retailers are increasingly targeted because they combine valuable customer data with complex, interconnected systems," he said. (Reporting by Sarah Young; Editing by Mark Potter)
