Anatomy of Labour’s purge of left-wing Jews: the elected NCC member

Jewish NCC member Stephen Marks

The first of a series looking at the annexes to JVL’s detailed complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) about Labour’s war on left-wing Jews looks at the only left-wing Jewish member of Labour’ most senior disciplinary committee, the National Constitutional Committee (NCC) – now suspended by the party on a completely insubstantial pretext.

The annex looks at his Jewish upbringing, his 40-year history in the party, his election by Labour members to the NCC, his wealth of relevant experience for his role there and his treatment at the hands of the Starmer-led Labour right:

Annex 2
Stephen Marks

Mr Stephen Marks is Jewish, brought up in a mainstream United Synagogue Jewish family and had his barmitzvah there. He spent his gap year in Israel attending courses at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Mr. Marks has a 40-year history of activity in the Labour Party, first in Hampstead and Highgate, and since 1991 in Oxford East. Party positions held include: branch chair, GC delegate, Political Education Officer and a
former Oxfordshire County Councillor and deputy group leader. In 2018, when he stood as and was successfully elected to the NCC, he was Vice-Chair of Oxford District Party.

He is also a life member of the NUJ (now retired); a former FoC, branch committee member, industrial council member, Trades Council delegate, and national conference delegate. He represented members in disciplinary cases and before industrial tribunals. As a local party EC [executive committee] member he chaired selection and panelling meetings for local government candidates.

A committed Labour socialist, he has been active in antiracist campaigns and international campaigns for human rights. He has therefore found it particularly painful as a Jewish member of the Party, to be accused of undermining Labour’s ability to fight against racism and antisemitism.

In addition, Mr. Marks is a member of the JVL committee and an elected member of the NCC, bringing to that post his knowledge, as a Jew, of antisemitism and of discrimination.

This month he has been suspended from the Labour Party for charges with no substance at all; there is nothing that could be described even as opaque or open to interpretation in the evidence cited. It appears he has been singled out precisely because he is JVL committee member and because he is a rare Jewish member of the NCC with the expertise to understand what is and what is not antisemitism.

The letter that Mr Marks received from the Labour Party suspending him from membership is
confidential. But we can reveal the broad outline of it.

The draft charge is phrased as follows:

Mr Stephen Marks (the Respondent) has engaged in conduct prejudicial and / or grossly detrimental to the Party in breach of Chapter 2, Clause I.8 of the Labour Party Rule Book because it:

1. May reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, or belief; and / or

2. may reasonably be seen to involve antisemitic stereotypes and sentiments; and / or

3. undermines the Party’s ability to campaign against racism; and / or

4. suggests that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears.

The evidence adduced consists of 3 public documents which date from July 2016, April 2017 and April 2918 where Mr Marks’ name is to be found.

The first was signed by 43 Jewish members of the Labour Party, asking Chuka Umunna to “Stop using antisemitism smears against Corbyn”; the second by 145 members of the Labour Party a substantial number of whom are Jewish, argued that such incidents of antisemitism as there were in the Party were infrequent and not systematic and that antisemitism accusations were being used to undermine the right to criticise Israel; the third a petition which garnered 7,689 signatories (including that of Noam Chomsky).

This petition started with an unabashed condemnation of all forms of racism, says that “we know anti-Semitism exists in society and needs to be combatted”, but worried about the development of “a chilling culture of fear, self-censorship, of members afraid to openly ask questions and learn, particularly on social media”.

It is unclear how the first three charges can even begin to be applied to these documents and Mr Marks support for them, such as it was. We are aware that NCC panels have rejected signatures on petitions as constituting evidence since the panel hearing such cases has determined that they are simply expressions of opinion.

It is not a breach of LP rules for instance to hold the opinion that a particular individual should not have been suspended or disciplined.

Where there are many signatories to a petition, maybe running into hundreds or even thousands, to single out one individual for disciplinary proceedings cannot be justified without additional reasons.

Incidentally, the image showing Mr Marks having signed the second petition is selective in the list of signatories displayed. It is not a complete list. It is our belief that if any other signatories’ names are displayed, all should be shown as otherwise the company in which Mr Marks signed it is incomplete and could be misleading.

The fourth charge is even more disturbing. At no point do these petitions even hint at the suggestion that complaints of antisemitism are in general fake or smears.

What they all do, in one way or another, is point to a highly factionalised situation in the Labour Party after Mr Corbyn’s election as Labour leader in September 2015 in which an increasing number of allegations of antisemitism were made. These complaints as Macpherson had suggested in 1999 in relation to allegations of racism must be recorded as such and assessed. But it is notable from for example the second Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) submission titled Closing Submissions on Behalf of the Jewish Labour Movement on 5th December 2019 that many of those allegations came in a wide variety of formulations.

Mr Marks is well aware distinctions need to be made in assessing accusations of antisemitism. Indeed, as a member of the NCC he has sat on a number of cases in every one of which the allegations of antisemitism have been upheld!

Leaders of certain Jewish communal bodies do not seem able to make these distinctions and act as if they can decide cases of antisemitism in advance, without any investigation into the context of statements being necessary. Even more disturbing, they deem certain views, held by many other Jews, as unacceptable. We are witnessing a split between Jewish opinions on this topic ¬– particularly in what ways and to what extent criticism of Israel and/or Zionism might in certain circumstances be antisemitic – elevated into a divide in which certain opinions are to be drummed out of the Jewish “community” as not legitimate. And, by
extension, to be drummed out of the Labour party

Mr Marks is on public record, writing in 2018, that:

“ANTISEMITISM CERTAINLY exists in British society, and in common with other forms of racism, bigotry and scapegoating, has been increasing in recent years as austerity and insecurity bite.

Its causes include ignorance, the growing tendency, especially on social media, to simplified conspiracy theories including memes about ‘Rothschild banks’, and confusion of all Jews with Israel, not least due to the uncritical support for Israel from official Jewish community organisations.

However, along with most Labour members, we totally reject the claim that Labour is “institutionally antisemitic”, or an “unsafe place for Jews”. We simply fail to recognise our party in this description.

We endorse these views and can only believe Mr Marks has been targeted as a critic of the current leadership, selected out from other signatories of these letters and petitions because of his prominent position, as a Jew in the Labour Party, holding political ideas that the Board of Deputies of British Jews and others do not deem “desirable” and find particularly threatening, it seems, when held by fellow Jews.

JVL’s detailed complaint to the EHRC is far more compelling and substantial than anything that the EHRC said it found in its first report on the Labour party. Will the EHRC act and hold Starmer to account for targeting left-wing members as ‘the wrong type of Jew’ – a targeting that continued this week with a ‘notice of investigation’ to JVL co-chair Jenny Manson simply for stating facts in a BBC Newsnight interview?

The other case studies in the dossier will follow until the series is completed.


  1. In answer to the question posed, They should, investigate further and hold starmer and co to acvount. But i believe it when i see it happen.

    1. Starmer is now running the Labour Party as a support group for the illegal occupiers of Palestine. He is using any method possible to try and silence anyone in the Party who attempts to show Socialist values and speak out against Israel’s atrocities.

      Stephen Marks has obviously been targeted because he is an outspoken critic of the racist State of Israel and because he is Jewish, his criticisms are deemed by the public to hold more legitimacy than do the criticisms of some others who can be smeared as being antiSemitic and for that reason he and others in the JVL must be silenced by Starmer.

  2. The last sentence in the above article should in fact read as follows:

    Will the EHRC act and hold Starmer to account for targeting left-wing members as ‘the wrong type of Jew’ – a targeting that continued this week with a ‘notice of investigation’ to JVL co-chair Jenny Manson because JVL submitted a complaint about the Labour Party to the EHRC.

  3. I saw last week that a high profile ex Labour activist had just been asked to delete a tweet written in 2019.

    Two years on and Labour are still trawling social media and demanding subservience, even when the person concerned is no longer a member. In recent days, both the Electronic Intifada and Tony Greenstein have been sent letters threatening legal action against them, seemingly for their criticism of the Israeli state and the conduct of the Labour party.

    I know personally that Labour have no respect for fairness, due process, natural justice, democratic process or even the law. They disregard members rights under the General Data Protection Requirements and there are numerous examples of members having complaints upheld by the Information Commissioners Office. Still the party refuse to comply and deny members their civil rights. Now they want to control the conduct of ex members who are private citizens, even when they are acting lawfully.

    This is very sinister and an indication of Starmer’s and Evans authoritarian mind set. Starmer is a menace and a threat to the little democracy and civil rights we still have.

    1. Nemtona, “authoritarian mind set” I believe you are being kind here. They are authoritarian of course but, as some one that was born and grew up under fascism, I can appreciate that perhaps both Starmer and Evans, have a fascist mind set too.
      Let’s us not forget that fascists from Hitler to Franco no forgetting Mussolini hated Jews.

      1. It seems highly unlikely that Starmer hates Jews Maria, as he is married to a Jewish woman (and his kids half Jewish). That said, he, and the Bairites – and Jewish labour MPs such as Hodge and Smeeth in particular – along with the JLM and the CAA and the BoD and LFI and CST and the Jewish newspapers and the billionaire owners of much of the MSM and the majority of their journalists and columnists et al are outright fascists, as only fascists ‘work’ to subvert democracy by deceiving and duping millions of people.

        I know I’ve posted it several times before, but the following encapsulates the fascist mindset of these people:

        And the fact that they had no problem whatsoever with causing concern and consternation amongst many in the Jewish community (when Jeremy was leader) in their quest to demonise him and destroy his reputation and, as such, his chances of winning a GE, tells you all you need to know about how evil these people are. And I REALLY do mean EVIL. Totally evil!!

        PS And that ALSO includes the leadership of the Tories and the LibDems!

      2. I came across the following assessment on JVLs website from October 2017 last night. It’s really long – probably about an hour’s reading – but well worth taking the time to do so:

        ‘The antisemitism allegations revisited once again’

        PS And well worth sharing with anyone you happen to know that swallowed all the A/S lies and falsehoods (assuming they have an attention span of more than two minutes).

  4. This disregard for the law, and the ruthless desire to destroy certain individuals makes me wonder whether Starmer and co. are signed up members of a secret society, with hidden controllers, senior connections and knowledge that is taken to the grave…? We could set about cleansing the world if these scumbags were made to declare their membership.

    1. Wirral, They are and it isn’t a Secret Society. We know who they work for and who pays their wages. It’s all circles within circles. And it all comes back to the British Establishment and its control over our Society.

      1. Baz, and how do they remain free to assert control over political parties and their members? Because no open declarations are required, according to law, by the same British Establishment. Their identities remain unknown. Judges, politicians, diplomats, media, senior civil servants, police, or to describe them in one word; the Brotherhood.

        It’s these unidentified people we can soon thank for chilling any investigations into government, fake opposition and imprisoning UK journalists.

        Would Starmer squeal on his buddies? Of course not! Thanks.

  5. Speaking as a catholic deplorable, I believe that if Sir Keir Starmer & the Labour Party consults with the Board of Deputies, they should also consult with the Pope B4 making any political decisions. Catholics are the only ‘people’ in GB that can be discriminated against by law..

  6. Steve, as a deplorable catholic too, I am not sure as to whatever you are been sarcastic. Somehow, I believe best for any religious leader to stay out of dictating terms to political Parties. Although, I welcome their involvement in politics, by speaking against poverty and inequality for example.
    I would not welcome the Pope’s involvement in Labour Party’s affairs anymore that I welcome the involvement of the BoD.

    1. I would condemn the Pope for recommending unapproved, experimental gene therapies to his flock, particularly when his wealthy Catholic friends in Big Pharma are protected from any legal recourse and free to profiteer even more with the Pontiff’s backing. Would Jesus have approved?

      1. Wirral – You may find this interesting.

        Anti-vaxxers only
        As the pandemic progresses, some opponents of Covid-19 vaccines are taking things one step further.
        An emerging international grassroots movement is seeking to create online and offline communities away from the vaccinated world.
        Trending meets the people who are setting up dating sites, house share groups, even blood banks specifically for the unvaccinated only.
        Underpinning many of these efforts is the totally unfounded belief in “vaccine shedding” – the false idea that the unvaccinated can be made ill simply by being around people who have had a coronavirus jab.
        But will any of these alternatives to mainstream society take root?

      2. Yes, very interesting. I’ve often thought the World Service contains the Beeb’s best news/current affairs output. Thanks for the link, Steve!

    2. Maria – this does not stop Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis passing comment on the evils of Socialism or Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders. Sarcastic? Me? If ever a man was misunderstood?
      PS I am not a deplorable catholic, I am a catholic deplorable.

      1. Steve, the point that I am trying to make is that Starmer should send the Chief Rabbi packing. I find outrageous that Starmer allows him to dictate Labour’s Party policy.

  7. The Fact still remains that 5 Years of non-stop Antisemitism Allegations 1 Person out of 550K Members were Charged by the CPS for Antisemitic Views, 1/550K=0.00017% of Members found Guilty of Antisemitic Views
    After an extremely lengthy EHRC Investigation and Report and NO more referrals for The CPS to be Charged the 1/550K = 0.00017% “Remains a Crisis”!
    AND Yet there is ONE Black Woman who receives more Racist, Misogynist, Hate Speech, Death Threats, Rape Threats than ALL The Woman MPs in Parliament put together, and The EHRC did not even hear of this 99.99999999+++++% CRISIS!!!? Nor the Crisis of The Black, Muslim, Other Minorities including Black & Non-Zionist Jews!?
    I think that Neolabour Party TORY “WHITE RUG” must be Extremely DEEP & PLUSH!!!!

    1. And that one member was already a non member when he committed the antisemitic act, he had already been thrown out of the Party. So in effect NO MEMBERS have ever been charged with antisemitic behaviour.

      1. Yup! At the end of the day Antisemitism is Racism and Racism is illegal and punishable by law! We just need to look at ONS Annual Reports to see where the Crises are!
        Oddly the ONS reports have changed in their Data Breakdowns a little more obscured in finding exact data breakdown information over the past few years.
        The Difference between and why we never hear of the Antisemitism as Racism cases much/ever is because Jews who suffer Racism Phone 999 or go to The Police Station, because of a Serious Incident and they mostly reject any MSM reporting on the other hand Zionists Jews/Non-Jews alike, who spot an opportunity to twist an allegation into the Definition of Antisemitism go to The MSM, MSSM, not the Police, they did dump those thousands of leaked cases on Ferrari, who dumped it on Dick, who set up a team to investigate, and they came back with just 6 Possible cases for referral to The CPS for investigation and of which Only that One already Expelled Member was found guilty of Antisemitism!
        There is a REAL SERIOUS question here, that unit was busy several months on those cases, before Dick came back to give her ‘Verdict’, is that not Blatant Waste of Police Time and isn’t that against the Law!?

  8. Skelly, and who was the main protagonist of wasting police time with the most numerous fake vexatious and offensive Antisemitism accusations?

    Yes, the Gold Medal goes to Margaret Hodge. A person who’s dodgy, nasty history really does bear scrutinizing.

    That sums up the New Labour Party under Max Headroom.

  9. Need a larf!:

    ‘Keir Starmer is hoping his first in-person conference speech can unite party…’

    Anyway, here’s a couple of clips from the article:

    But the Corbynite campaign group Momentum and Labour’s biggest donor, the Unite trade union, have criticised the decision to proscribe four leftwing Labour groups, meaning their members are automatically thrown out of the party.

    Starmer’s team say banning small but vocal groups including Labour Against the Witchhunt followed from his determination to root out antisemitism. But Unite called it “political machismo” and Momentum claimed it feared one day also being proscribed.

    One party source blamed the clearout on “factionalists” in the leader’s office, rather than Starmer, who has repeatedly underlined his determination to seek party unity.

    Yes, perish the thought that Starmer had anything to do with it! Doh!!

    Meanwhile, without the draw of an impending leadership race or general election, party membership has declined by 120,000 from its peak under Corbyn, to 430,000. “They’re leaving in droves,” claimed one senior party figure from the Corbyn era.

    Nothing to do with Starmer of course!

  10. I suspect that you don’t get to be a Kight Commander of The Most Honourable Order of the Bath (KCB) without being a member of the “Brotherhood”.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: