On breakfast television on Thursday he said the "only man" in the Lindt cafe during the siege was gunman Man Haron Monis. "Where were the men?," he said. "The only man, really man there, was a man with a gun."

He later claimed that he "misspoke" and that his words had been taken out of context. Apparently, what he meant to say was that "the gunman was the only cowardly man, he was hiding behind the shotgun, I was certainly not complimenting him". In a follow-up tweet, Mr Nile said he had meant to say the "the real Man was the man WRESTLING with the gun".

Anyone unfortunate enough to have witnessed Mr Nile's original utterance live on TV might beg to disagree with his revision.

Commenting on suggestions that those seized at gunpoint in the Sydney cafe might get bravery awards, the long-serving member of the NSW Legislative Council, who turned 80 last September, has this week been critical of the male hostages for not risking their own lives to save the women.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has written to Governor-General Sir Peter Cosgrove to say cafe manager Tori Johnson and lawyer Katrina Dawson, who were killed in the 16-hour siege in December, should be honoured with posthumous bravery awards, and that "proper consideration" should be given to the actions of others involved, including other hostages and police.

"So every Sydney siege hostage will get a bravery award?" Mr Nile tweeted. "Even the men who fled, leaving women behind. Don't shame, but don't reward."

The words "don't shame" suggest Mr Nile, a former Army Reserve major, may indeed have considered such behaviour potentially shameful. He went on to say, in other media interviews, that "usually men try to protect the woman. And it seems the men were looking after … were saving their own skin".

Mr Nile is entitled to his view that bravery awards for anyone other than the dead might "cheapen" them. But his bizarre comments serve only to add insult to injury for those individuals who escaped the cafe with their lives - many of whom are likely second-guessing their own actions and dealing with all of the complex emotional and psychological issues of post-traumatic stress and survivor guilt.

For one thing, his remarks ignore the value of information provided to police by hostages who fled. But until the completion of the coronial inquest, due to begin on January 29, nobody, including Mr Nile, is in a position to pass judgment on anybody or their actions.

The religious conservative's propensity for ignorant and insensitive intrusions into public discourse is well know. His previous bone-headed utterances have included attacks on the gay community and the Sydney mardi gras, comparisons between ethics classes in schools and Nazism and communism, and attacks on the private lives of Senator Penny Wong and former prime minister Julia Gillard.

The difference between these outbursts of close-mindedness and Mr Nile's latest affront? This time the Legislative Council deputy president appeared to realise relatively quickly that he had gone too far. Of course, instead of expressing remorse for his breakfast TV brain snap, Mr Nile complained - not for the first time - that he had been verballed by the media. That claim, as many of his critics are sure to point out, seems just as cowardly as anything he is suggesting individuals caught up in the Martin Place siege have done. One would expect, given the value Mr Nile apparently places on courage and integrity, that he would say what he means and mean what he says.

As for his stated intention to run for another eight-year term as the No. 1 candidate for his Christian Democratic microparty in the NSW election, if Mr Nile does not decide before the March poll that his time has passed, perhaps the voters of the state will decide for him.