It is fair to say that the last Assembly election will be remembered for its ‘brutal’ soundbites and insults.

It provided a stark reminder of how divisive language can easily re-flame tribal divisions in Northern Ireland.

With the DUP returned with just one more seat than Sinn Féin, many commentators have attributed the unprecedented spike in nationalist turnout to Arlene Foster’s hardline unionist rhetoric throughout the campaign, encapsulated by her disparaging ‘crocodile’ comments around the prospect of installing an Irish language act.

We can only imagine that the brutal language employed preceded what are brutal post-election negotiations, with SDLP leader Colum Eastwood claiming that halfway through the timeframe for talks between the parties there has been no full plenary meeting of all parties and both the British and Irish government.

Whilst Mrs Foster’s language during the Assembly campaign may have been unhelpful, the same can be said for comments made by Sinn Féin’s MEP Martina Anderson in relation to Brexit, albeit to a practically empty European Parliament. Speaking on the potential implications Brexit might have on the Irish border, she said:

“What British armoured cars, tanks and guns couldn’t do in Ireland, twenty-seven member states will not be able to do… so Theresa, your notion of a border, hard or soft, stick it where the sun doesn’t shine, because you’re not putting it in Ireland.”

Reaction to Ms Anderson’s remarks has focused mainly on her lack of decorum when addressing her European counterparts in this formal setting.

What is more concerning, however, is the attempt to draw parallels between a border resulting from an expression of a democratic decision, however undesired, and troubled days of the past when the border became a front line of the conflict between the British Army and the Irish Republican Army.

For those who vividly remember the Troubles, this reference has been uncomfortable.

It is one thing to take a stance against Brexit and warn of its consequences; to express respectful reservations about a proposed policy change. That is the nature of democratic debate.

Dehumanising political opponents as ‘crocodiles’, directing insulting remarks at the British Prime Minister and referencing the past as such, is another.

Both instances are indicative of a wider problem of our politics. We have a long way to go to demonstrate the genuine sense of respect that a post-conflict society requires.

Moving on is easier said than done; that is precisely the point.

In the average workplace, colleagues are required to use appropriate language when speaking to and in front of each other. It’s time those standards of common courtesy were embraced by our political representatives.