Doctor who faces inquiry for asking a Muslim to lift her veil says he will quit after 23 years as a GP due to the 'major injustice' of the investigation

A GP has revealed he is planning to quit medicine over an investigation by the doctors watchdog into claims he ‘discriminated’ against a Muslim woman for asking her to remove her veil.

Dr Keith Wolverson said he ‘politely’ asked the woman to take off the garment for patient safety reasons during a consultation last year because he was unable to hear her explain her sick daughter’s symptoms.

He was then ‘deeply upset’ when last week he received a letter from the General Medical Council, the professional regulator, informing him that he was subject to an inquiry over allegations of racial discrimination which could result in him being struck off.

Last night, Dr Wolverson, who has practised as a GP for 23 years and has an unblemished record, said regardless of the outcome of the investigation he now plans to leave his job.

He said: ‘I feel a major injustice has taken place. This is why you are waiting so long to see your GP and doctors are leaving in droves. This country will have no doctors left if we continue to treat them in this manner. I’m deeply upset.

‘A doctor’s quest to perform the very finest consultation for the safety of the patient has been misinterpreted in a duplicitous manner to suggest there has been an act of racism committed. I absolutely no longer want to be a doctor.’

Dr Wolverson told how the Muslim woman brought her daughter, aged ten or 11, to see him at a walk-in centre at Royal Stoke University Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, last June.

The mother said she was concerned the child had tonsillitis.

But the 52-year-old GP struggled to hear the mother’s account of the girl’s health problems because her speech was being obscured by her niqab – a garment worn by some Muslim women that covers the body and face apart from the eyes.

The doctor said he ‘politely’ asked the woman to remove the veil covering her face so he could be sure what she was saying.

‘I asked her, would you kindly remove your face veil please because it makes communication very difficult,’ Dr Wolverson explained. ‘Normally this issue doesn’t arise because patients automatically do so.

‘One would think that any parent would be wholly supportive and grateful that a doctor was trying to safely treat their child.’

According to Dr Wolverson, the mother complied with his request without raising any objections.

But half an hour after the consultation, her husband arrived and declared he was making a complaint about the GP’s behaviour.

‘He sat outside my consultation room and threateningly made eye contact towards me whenever I went out to fetch each patient,’ Dr Wolverson said. ‘He then made a formal complaint and I was prevented from working at the walk-in centre again.’

It has since emerged that NHS bosses sent the GMC a form outlining the complaints. It says the woman told the doctor she did not want to remove the veil on religious grounds but he refused to continue the consultation unless she did.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7046077/Doctor-faces-inquiry-asking-Muslim-lift-veil-says-quit-23-years-GP.html

Fucking ridiculous. They should ban it like half of Europe already has.

+1

What a stupid women for reporting him but I do have serious doubts about whether a piece of cloth can stop you hearing someone else speak? Her family and friends must be able to hear her?

He apparently could understand that she was concerned her daughter had bronchitis, but couldn't understand the rest? Sounds fishy to me.

Perhaps the husband's just a dick, but stories like this tend to get all twisted up and exaggerated. I'm always skeptical of the type of story that seems perfectly suited to anger people on both sides of the political spectrum.

Shouldn't need to ask her to remove the face covering, we don't go into doctors surgeries wearing balaclavas or motorbike helmets for instance, we remove them out of courtesy to the usual custom of this country. This really should be the norm for someone coming here who insists on wearing such a garment. Respect should work both ways, with perhaps the nod going to the host countries' customs.

Vintage wrote:Shouldn't need to ask her to remove the face covering, we don't go into doctors surgeries wearing balaclavas or motorbike helmets for instance, we remove them out of courtesy to the usual custom of this country. This really should be the norm for someone coming here who insists on wearing such a garment. Respect should work both ways, with perhaps the nod going to the host countries' customs.

No I don’t agree. One should be able to wear what one likes. It wasn’t a security issue it was a “hearing” issue, which I don’t buy.

This is not a fashion choice and its definately not a religious requirement. It's originally a way of dressing in a desert situation to keep sand out of your hair and face, even men with any sense wears such clothing in the desert, last time I looked we don't have deserts or sandstorms. You can certainly wear what you like but in certain circumstances you have to accommodate the situation.

Well someone is lying as both accounts contradict each other.

Vintage wrote:This is not a fashion choice and its definately not a religious requirement. It's originally a way of dressing in a desert situation to keep sand out of your hair and face, even men with any sense wears such clothing in the desert, last time I looked we don't have deserts or sandstorms. You can certainly wear what you like but in certain circumstances you have to accommodate the situation.

Well people wear all sorts of clothes that don’t necessarily accommodate a climate or a situation so that part of your post isn’t really relevant, in my opinion.
The point of the OP is he couldn’t hear her which I simply don’t buy.

Now I’m not saying he was being nasty because she was a Muslim, but the not hearing her part, doesn’t make sense to me.

Maybe he has a thing about wanting to see the person he is talking to....and he should be entitled to hold that view.

Could be he was making the excuse he couldn't hear her because he felt intimidated to speak the truth.

I know a jeweller who refuses to open his door to hijab wearing women....and he openly says so, which is his right.

I understand people’s views I just don’t agree with them. A GP should let people be comfortable when they’re going to see him.

My point still stands: Muslims must be heard perfectly well when they’re going about their day to day life. A piece of cloth over your face doesn’t stop someone hearing you.

And that’s what he said his problem was.

eddie wrote:I understand people’s views I just don’t agree with them. A GP should let people be comfortable when they’re going to see him.

My point still stands: Muslims must be heard perfectly well when they’re going about their day to day life. A piece of cloth over your face doesn’t stop someone hearing you.

And that’s what he said his problem was.

I have no problem with women wearing face coverings if they feel comfortable wearing them either.
But I can also understand why other people feel uncomfortable not being able to see the persons face they are trying to communicate with.

Sometimes one persons rights have to be superceded by anothers.

Yes but we are talking about this GP and his problem of “hearing” a patient.
I’m not debating whether someone can wear something?

eddie wrote:Yes but we are talking about this GP and his problem of “hearing” a patient.
I’m not debating whether someone can wear something? 

I already said, as both versions of what actually happened contradict each other, either the GP or the woman is lying.
Hopefully the investigation will deliver a fair outcome....but they cant both be proved right.

When someone speaks to you, of course you listen and hear them but you also watch their face and lips, even if you don't realise you're doing that. If you can't see their face, it can make it difficult to understand someone, especially if they have an accent or they speak quietly. Perhaps the doctor meant it would be easier to understand what she was saying rather than hear her.

In this kind of situation, one can either stand and fight against the injustice or walk away. I hope he doesn't regret walking away.

The doctor wasn’t inappropriate in any way shape or form So I don’t see why she felt the need to tell her dumb husband!

Fgs!

Until we are sure every woman wearing a face covering is doing so purely for her own reasons, saying we accept the wearing of these things is tantamount to supporting communities and families who culturally force women into them.
I still believe if you wear such a garment in a secular or culturally different country you should have enough respect for that countries culture to remove it voluntarily in certain situations such as at the doctors etc.

" A petition to prevent the sacking of a doctor who asked a Muslim patient to remove her veil in order to hear the details of her daughter's medical condition has reached over 59,000 signatures.
Dr Keith Wolverson admitted he was "rather fearful of the consequences" after finding out he had been reported to the General Medical Council (GMC) and would be the subject of a racial discrimination inquiry.
But despite being upset at the inquiry, Mr Wolverson said he was "absolutely bowled over" by the petition.

The creator of the petition, titled "Stop Dr Wolverson getting fired", said they believed the doctor acted in "the best interest of the child".
The description on change.org reads: "I would like to get as many people as possible to sign this petition and save this man's reputation.
"I believe he acted in the best interest of the child involved and there was no racist or religious discrimination in his actions.
"We need to ensure the General Medical Council treat this man fairly and look at all the evidence.
"Our NHS is severely understaffed and we cannot afford to lose doctors due to fabricated accusations of discrimination."





https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/59000-sign-petition-backing-doctor-who-asked-Muslim-mum-to-remove-veil/ar-AABU5hN?MSCC=1558891384&ocid=spartandhp

SEXY MAMA wrote:The doctor wasn’t inappropriate in any way shape or form So I don’t see why she felt the need to tell her dumb husband!

Fgs!

I agree with you wholeheartedly, SM, but unfortunately the fact that she felt that she had to do so simply reinforces the prevailing view that Muslim women are regarded as being subservient to men in their own culture (I hate to use the word "chattels" but it is an expression regularly used) and this is unacceptable among most people, myself included.

And therein lies more ammunition for those who would exploit the situation for sinister ends.

Raggamuffin wrote:When someone speaks to you, of course you listen and hear them but you also watch their face and lips, even if you don't realise you're doing that. If you can't see their face, it can make it difficult to understand someone, especially if they have an accent or they speak quietly. Perhaps the doctor meant it would be easier to understand what she was saying rather than hear her.

In this kind of situation, one can either stand and fight against the injustice or walk away. I hope he doesn't regret walking away.

We have faces for a reason. It's how we communicate not just though speech for all the subtle nuances of expression. It's madness, all this. The full face veil has no place in our society. It's a medieval device of control and subjugation. I don't care how many Muslim women try to to justify it. You can't.

It's her Husbands fault, she was quite willing, then she told her bigoted Husband and he objected. Perhaps he should return to where there is no NHS and start paying for his Families treatment. How much has he paid in to the NHS ?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:The doctor wasn’t inappropriate in any way shape or form So I don’t see why she felt the need to tell her dumb husband!

Fgs!

I agree with you wholeheartedly, SM, but unfortunately the fact that she felt that she had to do so simply reinforces the prevailing view that Muslim women are regarded as being subservient to men in their own culture (I hate to use the word "chattels" but it is an expression regularly used) and this is unacceptable among most people, myself included.

And therein lies  more ammunition for those who would exploit the situation for sinister ends.

I have no idea why SM takes the view that she does, but you do realize that you are, at best, expressing ethnocentrism. The strains of your culture are in strong conflict with the strains of their culture. Your customs and your values come from the same source, and so it's an endless, self-validating process.

You can judge them, and they can judge you, but there is no overarching god to say which is right. Until something changes there will always be this cultural rift.

BTW, I also agree with judeo-christian ethics. But I do so with full knowledge that I have no right to judge others who don't.

Had to get the Dictionary out again Quill,What the f++k is "ethnocent--------? Lawyer speak again ?

nicko wrote:Had to get the Dictionary out again Quill,What the f++k is "ethnocent--------? Lawyer speak again ?

Oxford Dictionaries wrote:Eth·no·cen·trism
/ˌeTHnōˈsentrizəm/
noun

1.
evaluation of other cultures according to preconceptions originating in the standards and customs of one's own culture.

Say you are a member of a club (ethnic group) that has rules and rituals. None of those rules and rituals apply to any other club. Yet you live by them, and judge other club members by them.

When you meet another group, from another club, none of your rules and rituals apply to them because they are of a separate club. They have their own rules/rituals, and have never agreed to your rules/rituals. You are being "club-centric" in that you're are taking the rules and rituals of your club (centralism) and trying to apply them to another club. If you try to impose them, you create divisions...sometimes insurmountable.

Ok, now, trade clubs for ethnic cultures. Then: you're are taking the rules/rituals of your ethnic group (centralism) and trying to apply them to another ethnic group. Sometimes, as here, the rules/rituals as to female dress are in diametric opposition to your culture. For you to impose your standards on another culture is being "ethnocentric".

Sorry, but unless he’s hard of hearing then he could hear her fine.
Her friends and family do...don’t they?

eddie wrote:Sorry, but unless he’s hard of hearing then he could hear her fine.
Her friends and family do...don’t they?

I agree...and to me, it just seems he was judging her culture and habit.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I agree with you wholeheartedly, SM, but unfortunately the fact that she felt that she had to do so simply reinforces the prevailing view that Muslim women are regarded as being subservient to men in their own culture (I hate to use the word "chattels" but it is an expression regularly used) and this is unacceptable among most people, myself included.

And therein lies  more ammunition for those who would exploit the situation for sinister ends.

I have no idea why SM takes the view that she does, but you do realize that you are, at best, expressing ethnocentrism.  The strains of your culture are in strong conflict with the strains of their culture.  Your customs and your values come from the same source, and so it's an endless, self-validating process.

You can judge them, and they can judge you, but there is no overarching god to say which is right.  Until something changes there will always be this cultural rift.

BTW, I also agree with judeo-christian ethics.  But I do so with full knowledge that I have no right to judge others who don't.

Perhaps I am "expressing ethnocentrism", Quill, but I live in a country where the legal system guarantees, or is at least supposed to guarantee, equality regardless not only of creed, ethnicity and sexuality but also of gender.

Denying certain rights and privileges to women simply because they are women is not, and should not be, tolerated in my opinion,  and you do, with respect, appear to be suggesting that here in the UK we should be prepared to accept such conventions as women, of whatever religion or none, being barred from driving, being forced to walk a regulated number of paces behind their husbands, not leave their house without a male family escort in attendance or being bound to disclose each and every detail, no matter how intimate, to their spouse.

Or even, perhaps, of being subjected to beatings for "transgressions."

That may well be acceptable in Saudi Arabia or some other Islamic countries, and I personally would not wish to express a judgement on the standards of their laws and customs; it is not my place to do so.  But it is not acceptable here in the UK.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Sorry, but unless he’s hard of hearing then he could hear her fine.
Her friends and family do...don’t they?

I agree...and to me, it just seems he was judging her culture and habit.

Maybe she spoke quietly, or with a strong accent, sometimes looking at a persons mouth when they speak makes it easier to understand what's being said.

Should Muslim women who wear a veil remove it in class if they are teachers?
It's the same principle really.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree...and to me, it just seems he was judging her culture and habit.

Maybe she spoke quietly, or with a strong accent, sometimes looking at a persons mouth when they speak makes it easier to understand what's being said.

Should Muslim women who wear a veil remove it in class if they are teachers?
It's the same principle really.

Eh...I'm not buying that. Maybe he is hard of hearing. Anyway, you just tell someone that you can't hear them (happens all the time with cell phones).

We are all agreed that the problem began with him. She apparently had no problem until he came along. I speak with surgeons all the time who are wearing a mask. Same with people bothered by the outdoor pollution...Asians in particular.

So, if it's a cultural thing at all, it's my opinion that he was making up an excuse to hide his prejudice.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Maybe she spoke quietly, or with a strong accent, sometimes looking at a persons mouth when they speak makes it easier to understand what's being said.

Should Muslim women who wear a veil remove it in class if they are teachers?
It's the same principle really.

Eh...I'm not buying that.  Maybe he is hard of hearing.  Anyway, you just tell someone that you can't hear them (happens all the time with cell phones).

We are all agreed that the problem began with him.  She apparently had no problem until he came along.  I speak with surgeons all the time who are wearing a mask.  Same with people bothered by the outdoor pollution...Asians in particular.

So, if it's a cultural thing at all, it's my opinion that he was making up an excuse to hide his prejudice.

Quill, clarity of speech apart, how do you regard the wearing of the full Islamic veil in a court of law, or any other situation such as a Congressional or Senate inquiry, in which the objective is to determine the truth?

I know that in all my years in journalism during, which I interviewed all sorts of people - pop stars, football icons and politicians from the chairman of a parish council to the Prime Minister of the UK, it was possible for me to learn much from being face to face with the interviewee and, more importantly, being able to see him or her....that involuntary sharp intake of breath or sideways movement of the eyes indicating hesitation or even shiftiness; subtle indications of whether the subject was being entirely honest, in fact.

In a court of law lying is perjury and a criminal offence, and I suspect that many an acutely observant counsel has used such facial expressions and mannerisms in order to gauge whether the defendant or witness is lying or not. Surely that would be impossible when a full veil is being worn, yet in some extreme cases where the state still practices capital punishment, the difference between a lie and the truth could literally be a matter of life or death.

Let's be honest, with some of the most heavy types of face veil it would not be possible to tell for certainty whether the witness was who she said she was or, indeed, even a woman, let alone whether she was clearly audible or perjuring herself.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Maybe she spoke quietly, or with a strong accent, sometimes looking at a persons mouth when they speak makes it easier to understand what's being said.

Should Muslim women who wear a veil remove it in class if they are teachers?
It's the same principle really.

Eh...I'm not buying that.  Maybe he is hard of hearing.  Anyway, you just tell someone that you can't hear them (happens all the time with cell phones).

We are all agreed that the problem began with him.  She apparently had no problem until he came along.  I speak with surgeons all the time who are wearing a mask.  Same with people bothered by the outdoor pollution...Asians in particular.

So, if it's a cultural thing at all, it's my opinion that he was making up an excuse to hide his prejudice.

We are not all agreed that the problem began with him....stop making sweeping statements.
For a start well over 60.000 people have signed a petition backing him.

How do you know she had no problems till he came along? What we do know is he has been a practicing GP for 23 years and he has an unblemished record.

According to the original post:

Syl OP wrote:Dr Keith Wolverson said he ‘politely’ asked the woman to take off the garment for patient safety reasons during a consultation last year because he was unable to hear her explain her sick daughter’s symptoms.

Sounds to me like he started it.  The General Medical Council thinks his reasons are shaky enough to hold a hearing on the matter of discrimination.  If his colleagues in the field of medicine think 'patient safety' might be a pretextual excuse, far be it for me to contradict them.

It’s just an inquiry, and he hasn’t been cashiered yet.  Frankly, this story, to date, is only about his resignation (if the title is correct): “…says he will quit after 23 years as a GP due to the major injustice of the investigation.”

In my experience, when someone gets weaked-kneed without even a hearing or a determination, it leads me to think his reasons are pretextual.  Why is he reluctant to air his reasons?    I mean, at the hearing she will put on the veil, and the doctors will determine for themselves if she cannot be understood.  Case closed...

Well I still think the woman was being disrespectful in not removing the veil in that particular circumstance, in the first place, this is not the middle east, respect works both ways.

Original Quill wrote:According to the original post:

Syl OP wrote:Dr Keith Wolverson said he ‘politely’ asked the woman to take off the garment for patient safety reasons during a consultation last year because he was unable to hear her explain her sick daughter’s symptoms.

Sounds to me like he started it.  The General Medical Council thinks his reasons are shaky enough to hold a hearing on the matter of discrimination.  If his colleagues in the field of medicine think 'patient safety' might be a pretextual excuse, far be it for me to contradict them.

It’s just an inquiry, and he hasn’t been cashiered yet.  Frankly, this story, to date, is only about his resignation (if the title is correct): “…says he will quit after 23 years as a GP due to the major injustice of the investigation.”

In my experience, when someone gets weaked-kneed without even a hearing or a determination, it leads me to think his reasons are pretextual.  Why is he reluctant to air his reasons?    I mean, at the hearing she will put on the veil, and the doctors will determine for themselves if she cannot be understood.  Case closed...

You are second guessing his reasons for wanting to resign. He says …..
A doctor’s quest to perform the very finest consultation for the safety of the patient has been misinterpreted in a duplicitous manner to suggest there has been an act of racism committed. I absolutely no longer want to be a doctor.’

According to Dr Wolverson, the mother complied with his request without raising any objections.

The husband later put in the complaint citing that his wife told the doctor she did not want to remove the veil on religious grounds but the Dr refused to continue the consultation unless she did.

So either the Dr with an unblemished record of 23 years is lying...or the womans husband is lying.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:According to the original post:

Sounds to me like he started it.  The General Medical Council thinks his reasons are shaky enough to hold a hearing on the matter of discrimination.  If his colleagues in the field of medicine think 'patient safety' might be a pretextual excuse, far be it for me to contradict them.

It’s just an inquiry, and he hasn’t been cashiered yet.  Frankly, this story, to date, is only about his resignation (if the title is correct): “…says he will quit after 23 years as a GP due to the major injustice of the investigation.”

In my experience, when someone gets weaked-kneed without even a hearing or a determination, it leads me to think his reasons are pretextual.  Why is he reluctant to air his reasons?    I mean, at the hearing she will put on the veil, and the doctors will determine for themselves if she cannot be understood.  Case closed...

Syl wrote:You are second guessing his reasons for wanting to resign. He says …..
A doctor’s quest to perform the very finest consultation for the safety of the patient has been misinterpreted in a duplicitous manner to suggest there has been an act of racism committed. I absolutely no longer want to be a doctor.’

He's entitled to put his own spin on the story.  The question of fact remains, did he object to her dress due to discriminatory reasons?

Syl wrote:According to Dr Wolverson, the mother complied with his request without raising any objections.

The husband later  put in the complaint citing that his wife told the doctor she did not want to remove the veil on religious grounds but the Dr refused to continue the consultation unless she did.

So either the Dr with an unblemished record of 23 years is lying...or the womans husband is lying.

How many years has the husband's record been unblemished?  The determination of facts is what hearings are for.  The ultimate question is, under the facts as decided, do the circumstances describe an act of discrimination under the law?

If the husband was not there, he can't be a factual witness to the event, that's all.  Police officers do that all the time: arrest subjects even though they (police) weren't there when the crime was committed.

The husband nonetheless has standing to object on the basis of discrimination toward his culture/religion.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

He's entitled to put his own spin on the story.  The question of fact remains, did he object to her dress due to discriminatory reasons?

Syl wrote:According to Dr Wolverson, the mother complied with his request without raising any objections.

The husband later  put in the complaint citing that his wife told the doctor she did not want to remove the veil on religious grounds but the Dr refused to continue the consultation unless she did.

So either the Dr with an unblemished record of 23 years is lying...or the womans husband is lying.

How many years has the husband's record been unblemished?  The determination of facts is what hearings are for.  The ultimate question is, under the facts as decided, do the circumstances describe an act of discrimination under the law?

If the husband was not there, he can't be a factual witness to the event, that's all.  Police officers do that all the time: arrest subjects even though they (police) weren't there when the crime was committed.

The husband nonetheless has standing to object on the basis of discrimination toward his culture/religion.

You stated before that 'She' had no problem till he (the Dr) came along......for all we know she, and her husband, could be using the race/culture/religious card on a weekly basis.

We do however know that the Dr had an unblemished record for many years.....as for the husbands record, who knows?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree...and to me, it just seems he was judging her culture and habit.

Maybe she spoke quietly, or with a strong accent, sometimes looking at a persons mouth when they speak makes it easier to understand what's being said.

Should Muslim women who wear a veil remove it in class if they are teachers?
It's the same principle really.

Eh...I'm not buying that.  Maybe he is hard of hearing.  Anyway, you just tell someone that you can't hear them (happens all the time with cell phones).

We are all agreed that the problem began with him.  She apparently had no problem until he came along.  I speak with surgeons all the time who are wearing a mask.  Same with people bothered by the outdoor pollution...Asians in particular.

So, if it's a cultural thing at all, it's my opinion that he was making up an excuse to hide his prejudice.

Like I keep saying....doesn’t this woman’s friends and family hear her okay?
And all the other millions of Muslim women who seem to be heard....

If it doesn’t make sense it probably ain’t true.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Eh...I'm not buying that.  Maybe he is hard of hearing.  Anyway, you just tell someone that you can't hear them (happens all the time with cell phones).

We are all agreed that the problem began with him.  She apparently had no problem until he came along.  I speak with surgeons all the time who are wearing a mask.  Same with people bothered by the outdoor pollution...Asians in particular.

So, if it's a cultural thing at all, it's my opinion that he was making up an excuse to hide his prejudice.

Like I keep saying....doesn’t this woman’s friends and family hear her okay?
And all the other millions of Muslim women who seem to be heard....

If it doesn’t make sense it probably ain’t true.

So Eddie, would you think it OK for a teacher to wear a full face veil whilst teaching a class?

Syl, honestly, hard on heart, it wouldn’t bother me.
Eyes are the windows to the soul. I don’t need to see someone’s mouth.
Sunglasses are far worse when trying to communicate.

eddie wrote:Syl, honestly, hard on heart, it wouldn’t bother me.
Eyes are the windows to the soul. I don’t need to see someone’s mouth.
Sunglasses are far worse when trying to communicate.

Well I would hope a teacher wouldn't teach in sunglasses either, unless they had a medical condition.

Facial expression is important...mouth movement as well as eye movement. I have no objection at all to women wearing the full face covering if it's her choice, but I do think they should remove it in certain circumstances if asked to.
I dont think the Dr did anything wrong....I dont think the woman objected. I do think her OH sounds like a controlling arehole though.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Maybe she spoke quietly, or with a strong accent, sometimes looking at a persons mouth when they speak makes it easier to understand what's being said.

Should Muslim women who wear a veil remove it in class if they are teachers?
It's the same principle really.

Eh...I'm not buying that.  Maybe he is hard of hearing.  Anyway, you just tell someone that you can't hear them (happens all the time with cell phones).

We are all agreed that the problem began with him.  She apparently had no problem until he came along.  I speak with surgeons all the time who are wearing a mask.  Same with people bothered by the outdoor pollution...Asians in particular.

So, if it's a cultural thing at all, it's my opinion that he was making up an excuse to hide his prejudice.

I never agreed that the problem began with him, so don't speak for me.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Eh...I'm not buying that.  Maybe he is hard of hearing.  Anyway, you just tell someone that you can't hear them (happens all the time with cell phones).

We are all agreed that the problem began with him.  She apparently had no problem until he came along.  I speak with surgeons all the time who are wearing a mask.  Same with people bothered by the outdoor pollution...Asians in particular.

So, if it's a cultural thing at all, it's my opinion that he was making up an excuse to hide his prejudice.

Like I keep saying....doesn’t this woman’s friends and family hear her okay?
And all the other millions of Muslim women who seem to be heard....

If it doesn’t make sense it probably ain’t true.

They're used to communicating with her, the doctor was not.

I think that I would have some difficulty relating to or understanding someone who spoke to me through a mask. When I was in hospital, everyone who came in the room was wearing a mask, and I had to concentrate a lot on what they were saying.

Well perhaps it depends upon how well you hear.

The story stinks of incomplete accuracy or complete contradiction.

eddie wrote:Well perhaps it depends upon how well you hear.

The story stinks of incomplete accuracy or complete contradiction.  

In your opinion. My hearing is OK.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Well perhaps it depends upon how well you hear.

The story stinks of incomplete accuracy or complete contradiction.  

In your opinion. My hearing is OK.

Didn’t you just say that doctors in masks were not always clear to you, when they spoke? Or am I missing your meaning?

You said: “When I was in hospital, everyone who came in the room was wearing a mask, and I had to concentrate a lot on what they were saying.”

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In your opinion. My hearing is OK.

Didn’t you just say that doctors in masks were not always clear to you, when they spoke? Or am I missing your meaning?

You said: “When I was in hospital, everyone who came in the room was wearing a mask, and I had to concentrate a lot on what they were saying.”

Yes, I did say that. My hearing is fine, but because they were wearing masks I couldn't see their faces, and it made it more difficult to get what they were saying - see Horatio's post and my previous post. Also, masks do muffle sound a bit.

I think it's rude to expect someone to listen to you if you're wearing a burka or whatever. Communication is difficult if you're listening to a piece of cloth.

Isn’t it great that the newborns of Muslims grow up, never having had that problem? What does that say?

But then, perhaps there are all these Muslim children who have grown up not knowing what their mothers are saying and feeling unsure about their mother’s feelings due to not being able to see their whole face and I’ve just never heard about it.
I’m prepared to believe that if I (or some other) finds some actual footage showing just that.

Facial coverings were original worn to protect the mouth from inhaling sand , we don't have many Sand Storms in Britain do we ?

eddie wrote:Isn’t it great that the newborns of Muslims grow up, never having had that problem? What does that say?

But then, perhaps there are all these Muslim children who have grown up not knowing what their mothers are saying and feeling unsure about their mother’s feelings due to not being able to see their whole face and I’ve just never heard about it.
I’m prepared to believe that if I (or some other) finds some actual footage showing just that.

In the home, women don't wear veils, etc. so that wouldn't be an issue, but you do raise the interesting question of, what about family outings, school runs, and other times when moms have their kids out in public?

Have there been any cases of kids getting hurt because they could not understand their veil-wearing mothers?