Same subject. Same politician. Two positions.

Position One
David McNarry supports usage of minority languages. McNarry supports language/dialects reflective of the indigenous population as existed in the north of Ireland prior to partition.

Position Two
David McNarry objects to usage of minority languages. McNarry opposes language/dialects reflective of the indigenous population as existed in the north of Ireland prior to partition.

McNarry's motion to the Assembly today stated: That this Assembly reaffirms its support for the recognition given to the Irish language and Ulster-Scots culture through Foras na Gaeilge and the Boord o Ulstèr-Scotch as an equitable framework for the expression of these linguistic and cultural traditions; objects to the proposal for an Irish Language Act in light of these arrangements; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to request all members of the Executive Committee to recognise the sensitivities of using the Irish language by refraining from its use in the Assembly Chamber, in Committees and in written communication with MLAs.

Consider this motion. It contains two positions (the first two clauses, versus the final clause).

Position One (first two clauses)
David McNarry urges Assembly to support recognition given to Irish language usage.

Position Two (finak clause)
David McNarry urges Assembly to object to recognition given to Irish language usage.

Is the use of Irish linked to political, cultural or ethnic identity? Which does McNarry find so objectionable? Legislation operates here prohibits discriminatory behaviour motivated by race, religion, political persuasion etc. Yet what is restricted as uncivil in a workplace is promoted as civic politics in Stormont.

Neville Sanders once got into a lot of trouble for making anti-Irish comments. When does McNarry stop being a Unionist and start being a racist?

For me, the 'when' got answered today. Sorry, Mark this wasn't a knock about. It was much more unpleasant than that.