The Truth about the 1986 Sinn F in Ard Fheis The story of how Gerry Adams tried to turn an eighty year old revolutionary movement into a British Constitutional party How he broke the Sinn F in constitution created fake cumainn to give him fake votes and barred life long republicans from voting How he managed to expel himself and his supporters from Sinn F in membership And how a small band of republicans managed to keep the Sinn F in constitution and traditional policy in tact In 1986 Section 1b of the Sinn F in constitution read as follows No person who is a member of any political party organisation or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who if elected intend taking part in the proceedings of the Westminster or partitionist 26 County or 6 County parliaments or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who sign any form or give any kind of written or verbal undertaking of intention to take their seats in these institutions shall be admitted to membership or allowed to retain membership The Adams leadership put forward a motion titled Resolution 162 at the 1986 Ard Fheis Its wording was as follows RESOLUTION 162 THAT this Ard Fheis drops its abstentionist attitude to Leinster House Successful Sinn Fein parliamentary candidates in 26 County elections a Shall attend Leinster House as directed by the Ard Chomhairle b Shall not draw their salaries for personal use Parliamentary representatives shall be paid a Sinn Fein organiser s subsidy and the Leinster House salary shall be divided at the direction of the Ard Chomhairle to defray national and constituency expenses To accommodate this change the Constitution and Rules be amended as follows That Section 1b of the Constitution be amended to read No person who is a member of any political party organisation or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who if elected intend taking part in the proceedings of the Westminster or partitionist 6 County parliaments or who approves of or supports the candidature of persons who sign any form or give any kind of written or verbal undertaking of intention to take their seats in these institutions shall be admitted to membership or allowed to retain membership Motion 162 supports and approves of the candidature of persons who if elected would be of the intention to take their seats in certain circumstances i e on the direction of the Ard Chomhairle Obviously Motion 162 infringes Section 1b Section 1b was in effect at the time this Resolution was presented Its clear that Adams made a mistake in procedure He should have sought a majority decision to amend Section 1b in 1986 and returned in 1987 to propose entering Leinster House Trying to amend Section 1b and propose taking seats in the partitionist 26 County Parliament in the same Resolution was a logical impossibility Can anybody say that the wording That this Ard Fheis drops its abstentionist attitude to Leinster House Successful Sinn Fein parliamentary candidates in 26 County elections a Shall attend Leinster House as directed by the Ard Chomhairle does not constitute the supporting and approving of the candidature of persons who intend to take their seats in Leinster House as directed by the Ard Chomhairle Clearly Adams was in breach of Section 1b and according to that section he had expelled himself and all those who voted for Resolution 162 Brian Feeney in his book Sinn F in 100 Turbulent Years puts forward the argument that Adams had managed to bypass Section 1b by introducing a motion in 1983 allowing the discussion of any aspect of the Sinn F in constitution This change may indeed have facilitated debate on abstentionism but it did not infringe on the content or effect of Section 1b in any way To discuss something is not the same as formally proposing or supporting it For example conventions are held regularly where drug addiction is discussed without any of the delegates proposing or supporting it In fact the line Adams added in 1983 was superfluous as the Sinn F in constitution had never banned the discussion of anything just the approving and supporting of taking seats in named partitionist parliaments Of course its not illegal to amend or remove section 1b Section 1b bans the approval or support of candidates who intend to take seats in British assemblies It can be removed or amended at any Ard Fheis by a two thirds majority The reason for doing so could be many Perhaps delegates might feel that it implies that they can not be trusted to be loyal to the Republic In fact its not necessary according to the constitution to give any reason But you