Human Rights Hypocrisy


Mark your diary for 10 December. It’s just around the corner and, no doubt, is an eagerly awaited day for the ABC’s Jane Hutcheon.

That’s because she has been nominated for a human rights award in the prestigious television category by the Australian Human Rights Commission. And it might just be presented to her then. Jolly good for Jane.

The citation reads:

Jane Hutcheon, Interview with Cate McGregor, One plus One, ABC TV.

This powerful interview with Cate McGregor, the Chief of Army’s speechwriter, raised awareness about transgender discrimination. Ms McGregor was being bullied by several bloggers because she is transgender. The interview brought hope and inspiration to many people who experience discrimination.

Now, I’m rather excited about this for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, I’m glad to have played a part in the recognition and advancement of human rights in Australia. That’s because Jane Hutcheon’s little interview was about this webpage and the Bundarrah Days blog.

Secondly, and more importantly, I’m excited because when people start dribbling lies and deception it gets my gander up.

That is exactly what has happened here. And no one has been taken for greater ride than Ms Hutcheon herself. It’d be pretty embarrassing to accept an award that was based on a fraud. It’ll be up to the One plus One presenter herself to determine if she is prepared to do just that.

But fraudulent that interview was.

So let’s look at the facts.

That interview aired on 5 July 2013.

And up until that point in time I had devoted a single, solitary piece to the good Lieutenant Colonel. That article was not based on any private interaction in the workplace. It was based entirely on the fact that this officer had left a public comment on the Bundarrah Days blog in which he attacked Catholic beliefs and ridiculed that blog’s Catholic author.

So it would be a lie to say that McGregor has been targeted. He brought the crosshairs on himself. If McGregor didn’t want people writing about him in public, he shouldn’t have written about them in public first, nor should he have spent time discussing his nether regions on ABC radio, which he has shown a penchant for in the past.

It’s that simple.

Interestingly, the central point of my piece on McGregor was that he is not a woman.

So you can imagine my pleasant surprise when he confirmed exactly this in his interview with Jane Hutcheon. The words he used were “I don’t consider myself to be a woman”.

Remember, Malcolm said that, not me.

Which kind of brings unstuck the whole basis of this human rights nomination. It’s a bit hard to claim that my webpage harasses and bullies Lieutenant Colonel McGregor when he started the debate. And it’s a real stretch of all credibility to pretend that I’ve bullied him for failing to acknowledge his womanliness when he has publicly confirmed that even he doesn’t believe that he’s member of the fairer sex.

All of this, in itself, kinda sorta makes the whole interview seem a little silly. It makes McGregor look silly too, but he doesn’t need much help in that regard. He’s doing a fine job of that all by himself.

But it gets worse. Much worse.

For a start, McGregor acknowledged in this interview that he expected people would disagree with his fanciful desire to transform himself into a lesbian. So why is he so upset that I have done just that? You can’t complain about criticism when you embark down a path that you freely acknowledge will be criticised.

What’s he expect? For all of us to send him a box of Roses and a copy of the latest Women’s Weekly?

By the way, Women’s Weekly will be featuring a photo-shoot of a bloke with an Adam’s Apple and an Army-issued skirt early next year. I can’t wait to be labelled a bully for commenting on that one. Who knows, maybe some budding journalist might rack up a gong for it as well?

Furthermore, this interview was supposedly about raising awareness of transgender discrimination.

But while it may have done many things, what it certainly did not do was raise any awareness about transgender discrimination.

Yes, you got that right. It is possible for transgender people to engage in discriminatory, belittling and bullying behaviour towards others. That is exactly what the Chief of Army’s speechwriter has done.

This interview did not make any mention of the fact that Lieutenant Colonel McGregor has been counselled by the Army for breaching its code of conduct on unacceptable behaviour for his abusive comments.

Now, in Jane’s defence, she didn’t know any of this. It wasn’t public knowledge until 30 September – nearly three months after the interview aired.

But still. It’s pretty embarrassing. Especially when the comments that landed him in hot water were already publicly available for her to read, if only she had spared the time.

And all she had to do was what any journalist covering a story should do: check the facts.

It can’t have been that hard to actually contact the people who McGregor was whinging about. But Jane didn’t do this. One, perhaps, could be left with the impression that she only wanted to present one side of the story.

For instance, if Jane had taken a little time out, I could have told her before she went to air that Malcolm had tweeted on 15 June to the Chief of Defence Force that my father was a failure. Now I don’t expect Malcolm to hold my father in the same regard that I do, but he is actually another officer serving this country in the Australian Army.

So that would have been an interesting little topic for Jane to discuss with McGregor, especially as the Chief of Army, reading from the Lieutenant Colonel’s script just two days earlier, had ordered all soldiers to take a stand against bullying.

“If you become aware of any individual degrading another, then show moral courage and take a stand against it.”
Chief of Army from the speech written by Lieutenant Colonel McGregor, 13 June, 2013

Then there was this little cracker. On the 19 June, more than two weeks before Jane put Malcolm to air, he wrote an abusive email to the author of the Bundarrah Days blog in which he signed off with the words “Cate McGregor AM – suck on that f*ckwit”.

In the interests of decency, which Lieutenant Colonel McGregor clearly does not possess, the ‘*’ in that previous sentence was actually a ‘u’.

Now I’m not going to pretend that I’m a saint who has never used a bit of foul language before. But it is really not acceptable to link that word with the Order of Australia on a public forum. However, Ms Hutcheon preferred not to get to the bottom of the story and just passed off as ‘harassment’ the fact that McGregor’s fitness for the award was now called into question.

So Saint Malcolm is not as saintly as Jane portrayed. That really is too bad for him. And for Jane as well.

In fact, I do feel for her. Poor Jane. The interview was a masterful piece of PR. The lighting was sombre. The mood was serious. The topic was sensitive. The timing was perfect. Malcolm was eloquent. And her facial expressions were faultless. But it was all one big lie. Poor old Jane.

If Jane feels a little miffed, it’s not a surprise. But that’s what comes for failing to do some basic journalistic homework.

Then there was the ridiculous claim made by Malcolm as he sat opposite Ms Hutcheon that he’s decided to chart a dignified path.

His exact words were “I’m very conscious of the fact that I serve the Chief of Army directly. I have to be acutely aware that I need to conduct myself as a dignified person.”

Malcolm then went on to say “I have now withdrawn completely from biting back at people.”

This probably explains why just five days later he couldn’t help himself and emailed me a link to his interview. The Chief of Army’s speechwriter also said that my chin was irresolute and that I should join the Swiss Guards.

No doubt if I put on a skirt I’ll also be entitled to a taxpayer-funded interview with Jane on One plus One to wax lyrical about how impressive I am for surviving a bit of verbal chin music.  But I’m man enough not hide behind a skirt.

And finally, there’s the dirtiness of the interview. The outright lies.

Via the ABC, Lieutenant Colonel McGregor was able to call this website scatological. He was given the opportunity to disparage my 16 plus years of military service and three deployments as nothing more than ‘a tenuous link to the Army’. He was given a free range in which he could label me a coward. But he was not brave enough to allow me an opportunity to speak.

Remember, he and I both serve in the Army and he is a higher ranking officer. He used his position and links to the Chief of Army to engage in a public attack on my name, while in uniform.

And Jane offered me no right of reply at all. Great for Malcolm. Not great for the truth.

But as they say, never let the truth get in the way of a good story or a human rights award. The problem for Jane is that even before the award night this story has been proven one big lie.

The truth is that she missed the real story about Lieutenant Colonel McGregor.

While I’ve been cleared of all wrong doing, he has not. He is the only officer serving in the Army caught up in this little scandal that has breached Defence policy on bullying and harassment. Yet he’s being portrayed as the victim. It’s about as big a lie as you can get.

It would be rather ironic to receive a human rights award for making a bully look like a victim. My integrity would not allow me to do it. Will Jane’s?


Justice will come. It always does. I do not hold any grudges against Lieutenant Colonel McGregor and wish him well. But I would prefer it if justice was done in this life and not the next. That’s up to him.

But a wise man once asked what does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul? Another asked if it was worth it just for Wales.

Malcolm, is it worth it just so some no-name ABC reporter can take home some no-name human rights award?

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. What an incredible mess we are in. While nature dictates two sexes only the Australian Human Rights Commission has defined “gender identity” as a “broad term to refer to diverse sex and or gender identities and expressions. It includes being transgender, trans, transsexual and intersex. It also includes being androgynous, agender, a cross dresser, a drag queen, gender fluid, genderqueer, intergender, neutrois, pansexual, pan-gendered, a third gender, and a third sex. The Human Rights Commission is staffed by dangerous people who should be removed from their positions. Pretty well every sexual deviation known to man will be covered by it in time including pedophilia. Australians, wake up please – your children are in danger.

    Post a Reply
  2. Transsexuals are psychopaths.

    BRIDGEWATER, NJ, November 28, 2013 ( – Former friends and acquaintances of the New Jersey lesbian waitress who claimed she was stiffed on a tip because she was gay, say that evidence Dayna Morales made up the whole story isn’t surprising: she has a long history of fabricating similar, and even more elaborate, stories about herself.

    “She lies about everything,” said Samantha Reidy, former lesbian partner of Morales, to The Journal News.

    Post a Reply
    • Please explain to me the connection between making a sweeping and very insulting comment about transsexuals and a story about an attention seeking lesbian??

      Post a Reply
      • Hi Marie – I had a look and I couldn’t find the sweeping and insulting comment that you mentioned. Can you please be more specific. Also, McGregor just thinks he’s a lesbian. He’s not. He’s an abusive man who also claims that he is the role-model par excellence for transgender people in Australia.

      • Bernard. Homosexuals called freaks. Transsexuals called psychopaths. What we have here is a bigot hiding behind a bible.

      • Bernard,
        I was replying to sheik yer’mami’s comment that transsexuals are psychopaths. My apologies for not clarifying in my text.
        In terms of LTCOL McGregor, I would clearly regard her as being female and obviously if in a relationship with another woman – a lesbian. Her personal choice for which I have no opinion for or against.
        As for being a transgender role model . . . I have not found anything in what she has written or said that would suggest she thinks such a thing. She is just being herself.

      • It’s clear that you haven’t listened to the interview with McGregor then. And that means that you have not got the slightest clue what he has said, which means your assessments of him lack all credibility.

      • Bernard,
        I have most certainly listened to the interview. I will concede that she did indeed mention that she is seen as a role model within the media due to her visibility and the obvious media attention that is directed at her.
        However to suggest that in your words: ‘claims that he (sic) is the role-model par excellence for transgender people in Australia’ is a blatantly false statement on your behalf.

      • Marie, it’s clear you have a different definition of womanhood than most people. Malcolm McGregor is not female either genetically, chromosomally, anatomically or psychologically. Thus, he is not a lesbian either. Lesbian feminist writer, Janice Raymond, would disagree with you rather virulently I’m afraid. In her words “all transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves ..”

      • Phil,
        I would not presume for an instant to know LTCOL McGregor’s genetic make-up – I certainly did not realise you had access to such information. Or for that matter to her brain scans and psychiatric assessments?
        And really – quoting a book written by a radical lesbian feminist thirty-four years ago? Please explain how – by being a woman – has LTCOL McGregor raped anyone else’s body or appropriated anyone else’s body??

      • Marie, It’s clear that Malcolm McGregor is not not genetically female or he would be claiming an intersex condition, not transsexualism. He obviously possesses the SRY gene which is necessary for male development and he would also have been screened for any genetic abnormalities as part of his treatment and assessment. None of that occurred to you, did it? I’m not aware of any medical studies that make use of brain scans to assess psychological sex and unless you can produce evidence of any we can safely dismiss your point in that regard too. Finally, what has the fact that that Janice Raymond wrote the quote I provided 34 years ago got to do with anything? I believe Harry Benjamin wrote his standards of care for transsexuals well before that and they are still in use today. Janice Raymond’s comments are relevant because she is both a woman and a lesbian while Malcom McGregor is neither. Furthermore, Raymond is still an influential feminist today and continues to hold the same opinion.

      • Phil,
        Many things occur to me. However what I wrote quite clearly said that I would not presume to know for certain any of that information as I am not her or her doctor. As for brain scans – I did not say anything about them being able to show psychological sex. However they may show anatomical differences along the lines of female vs male development.
        In terms of Ms Raymond, her position is based upon the fact she is a radical feminist, not the fact that she is a woman or a lesbian. I most certainly do not believe men and women were created equal. We have our different natural strengths and weaknesses – physical and psychological – because that is the way god made us.

      • Marie, i said Malcolm McGregor was not female genetically. You sought to contradict that statement, however, as I demonstrated McGregor’s own description of himself as a transsexual supports me. If he was not genetically male he would not be transsexual but rather intersexed or to use the old term pseudo hermaphrodite. Your final sentence is an absolute backdown from your original post acknowledging the psychological and physical differences between men and women because “that is the way God made us?” That being so shouldn’t McGregor be satisfied with his god given status as a man, or at the very least accepting of it?

      • Phil,
        To be honest, I do not really care whether she is or isn’t intersex. The bottom line is that the only person that has the right to say whether they are a man or woman is the person them self.
        As for the latter part of my statement, reading back over it I certainly could have made things clearer – my apologies as it was getting quite late at night :-). I strongly believe there are significant differences between men and women, however I do not believe that it contradicts the ability for someone’s brain to develop in one direction and their body in another – whether that be due to genetics, or hormonal influences during conception. I would regard someone who develops in this way to be in need of medical assistance to match their body to their brain. I certainly couldn’t think of much worse than having a body of the opposite gender (no offence intended as I imagine the feeling is shared).

      • Marie, do you realise what a ridiculous statement you have made here? You said: “The bottom line is that the only person that has the right to say whether they are a man or woman is the person them self.” I’m afraid that’s not right. A man does not have the right to claim womanhood, nor a woman the right to claim manhood. In most cases the sex of a person is evident to everyone they interact with. Did you ever hear that old song by the Captain Matchbox Whoopee Band called “My Wahine in Wang? He was 6 foot six with broad shoulders and what a wacker! No woman should have to be confronted, for example, by a 6’6” bruiser with a deep baritone and wearing a mini skirt in her work bathroom or anywhere else for that matter. In relation to your comments about brain sex I say this. Sex is less about the brain than it is about the reproductive system. We are divided into two sexes so that we can reproduce. You have made a big assumption which is that in the transsexual condition the brain develops one way and the body another. There is not the slightest evidence for this. The Dutch study on the brains of transsexuals post mortem which found that the size of the stria terminalis in their brains was of a similar size to women could easily be caused by the administration of female hormones. On the other hand there is strong evidence that transsexualism is a paraphilia – a condition characterised by abnormal sexual desires. Essentially a transsexual is a man in love with the image of himself as a woman.

  3. The interview was fraudulent. It was a set-up. McGregor undoubtedly knew Hutcheon through his position as the Army chief’s PR man and cooked it up with her. There’s more than a bit of manipulation going on here. It seems that our lefty flakes take turns at giving each other awards and congratulating themselves. Anything for an awards ceremony and a free piss-up later on. As for me persecuting McGregor – the truth is that I mentioned him in passing in a blog post because Tony Abbott, the make-believe Catholic Opposition Leader, was being feted for planting a kiss on his cheek. It was around the time Abbott supported forcing priests to break the seal of Confession and after he had abandoned his opposition to the abortion drug RU 486. I just saw it as a final insult to Catholicism. As a reward for my passing mention of McGregor I received an abusive email from him which enquired whether “cattleman was my sexual preference.” I responded and posted both emails on Bundarrah Days. Thus began an exchange which ended on my part as soon as I realised I was dealing with a very obsessive and abusive individual. The emails from McGregor to me, however, continued long after I stopped responding. He made enquiries about me, spoke to former workmates and then wrote lies about what he was told. He claimed that he was “in control” of me and engaged in rants which I found almost impossible to believe could have come from a man in his position, transgender or not. He even attacked my teenage son for the heinous crime of laughing at one of his risible rants. McGregor initially thought he was dealing with an inferior intelligence that he could crack like a eggshell. He soon discovered he was wrong and that he needed help. The entire affair was laughable and for it to become the occasion for a human rights award is farcical. Put simply it was a case of the biter bit or the half colonel who bit off more than he could chew. That is all it was.

    Post a Reply
  4. You’ve devoted more words to condemning one lone trannie than the entire threat posed by Islam.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest