Editorial: The provocative use of the Irish language in areas where it is not wanted is unhelpful

Some unionists think that it is always best to be optimistic and generous and to look to the future. It is by no means an absurd position. Unionism is unfairly characterised as always saying no. It would indeed be good if it could find some charm. At the same time though, it needs to be firm in the face of multiple and relentless assaults, cultural and political.

Unionism perhaps needs to be more like republicanism, in projecting a friendly image while being uncompromising. But unionists, who with justification see republicans speaking with a forked tongue, do not want to seem like that.

Legacy is an example of republicans talking the language of reconciliation while whipping up the past by endlessly highlighting past claims against the security forces (and getting millions of UK taxpayer pounds to do so), then sanitising the IRA .

There is also a disingenuous approach to the Irish language. When even moderate unionists, for example the Ulster Unionist Party, spoke against an Irish language act they were mocked. But such an act was achieved through political blackmail by Sinn Fein’s three-year Stormont collapse.

Latterly Belfast City Council, with the support of the Alliance Party, has enacted a radical new approach to Irish that will see Gaelic signs spread all over the city. If anyone points out that a particular area does not want it, such as the area around Olympia leisure centre, they are dismissed as sectarian. But the loyalist village wants the Irish language as much as the republican Grosvenor Road, on the other side of the Westlink, wants Orange regalia.

It would be quite wrong to inflict that are cherished by unionists in largely nationalist areas. And it would not be tolerated. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Are there moderate nationalists who, in return, see how unhelpful and provocative such gratuitous use of Irish will be?