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

First topic message reminder :


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

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

Now face and head coverings are worn to show modesty. That's why nuns wear them, for example. A good number of American Christian women practice modest dress as well. https://modli.co/uk/

Nuns don't wear face coverings, and there's nothing in the Quran about covering the face ! It only says "women should dress modestly" !

Nicko is correct nuns do not cover their faces, even the most severe habit, usually of contemplative orders wear veils that project past the face at the sides but not cover it. Its not particularly worn for modesty the reason for it is the same reason horses wear blinkers, to avoid distraction when the nuns are supposed to be concentrating on their purpose in the religious life which is constantly praying for the redemption of the world.
Many women dress modestly religious or not, they mange to cover up without making themselves stand out as do many Muslim women. We have quite a few Muslim women doctors training in out local hospital they all wear modern clothes and hijab, they remain modest and covered but practical for their jobs, while not wearing anything too different from everyone else, except for the scarf I probably wear quite similar stuff.

I know one thing, women who wear the full face coverings with just a slit for the eyes are bloody dangerous when driving.
They may as well be wearing blinkers.

Raggamuffin 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.

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

If you are disclaiming the facts of the OP, then I will recognize you as an exception.

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

It’s really not what you or I think.  That is what the Hearing is for...to determine the facts.  The Dr.'s explanation was that he asked her to remove her veil for "patient safety".  At the hearing she will testify, and actually demonstrate by wearing the veil so as to show the Medical Council members if “patient safety” was actually in jeopardy.  

As doctors themselves, the Council members are best equipped to make that determination.  I'm sure justice will be served.

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

The story stinks of incomplete accuracy or complete contradiction.  

If you're a doctor, and you have to prescribe drugs, and if the risk of getting the diagnosis is in jeopardy even in the smallest way, what are you going to do? Hazard a guess and dish out the wrong medication, or ask for clarification? I don't blame him for asking her to remove her face covering. His career might have been on the line either way.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote: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.

It’s really not what you or I think.  That is what the Hearing is for...to determine the facts.  The Dr.'s explanation was that he asked her to remove her veil for "patient safety".  At the hearing she will testify, and actually demonstrate by wearing the veil so as to show the Medical Council members if “patient safety” was actually in jeopardy.  

As doctors themselves, the Council members are best equipped to make that determination.  I'm sure justice will be served.

What one person can hear, another may not be able to. It's like accents. Some are easy to understand, and others's aren't. Depends on your perception. It's not about hearing the words but understanding them.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It’s really not what you or I think.  That is what the Hearing is for...to determine the facts.  The Dr.'s explanation was that he asked her to remove her veil for "patient safety".  At the hearing she will testify, and actually demonstrate by wearing the veil so as to show the Medical Council members if “patient safety” was actually in jeopardy.  

As doctors themselves, the Council members are best equipped to make that determination.  I'm sure justice will be served.

What one person can hear, another may not be able to.   It's like accents.   Some are easy to understand, and others's aren't.  Depends on your perception.   It's not about hearing the words but understanding them.

It's important to understand that the issue put into evidence by the physician, through his pleadings, is "patient safety" and anything that implies. This will be determined by the Medical Council, at Hearing.  They will bring in the woman, with her veil, and have her speak just as she would with the doctor.  They will take into consideration your concern about variances in understanding, if the issue is raised.  If they can understand her perfectly, the evidence will point to a finding that no "patient safety" issue is present.  Then, on failure of that defense, a discriminatory motive will be left standing.

I often wonder what the Children of these Veil wearing Women think when they want to look at their Mothers face ? I know they take them off when at home, but a young Child wants to see their Moms face all the time . I may be wrong but that's how I "see it" !

nicko wrote:I often wonder what the Children of these Veil wearing Women think when they want to look at their Mothers face ?   I know they take them off when at home, but a young Child wants to see their Moms face all the time .   I may be wrong but that's how I "see it" !

To such children, a mother in a veil is the proper way.  I imagine that child is no different than a Mexican child who observes a father with a sarape.  Or a Polynesian child who sees his parents in ear-rings.

Indeed, how does your child feel when he sees you in pants.  Weird, eh?  

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I often wonder what the Children of these Veil wearing Women think when they want to look at their Mothers face ?   I know they take them off when at home, but a young Child wants to see their Moms face all the time .   I may be wrong but that's how I "see it" !

To such children, a mother in a veil is the proper way.  I imagine that child is no different than a Mexican child who observes a father with a sarape.  Or a Polynesian child who sees his parents in ear-rings.

Indeed, how does your child feel when he sees you in pants.  Weird, eh?  

We, as humans, have faces that hold a multitude of expressions and subtle nuances of communication. It's unique to us. What about if the doctor was deaf, and had to rely on lipreading? What then?

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I often wonder what the Children of these Veil wearing Women think when they want to look at their Mothers face ?   I know they take them off when at home, but a young Child wants to see their Moms face all the time .   I may be wrong but that's how I "see it" !

To such children, a mother in a veil is the proper way.  I imagine that child is no different than a Mexican child who observes a father with a sarape.  Or a Polynesian child who sees his parents in ear-rings.

Indeed, how does your child feel when he sees you in pants.  Weird, eh?  

How can you compare a pair of pants with a full face veil?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

To such children, a mother in a veil is the proper way.  I imagine that child is no different than a Mexican child who observes a father with a sarape.  Or a Polynesian child who sees his parents in ear-rings.

Indeed, how does your child feel when he sees you in pants.  Weird, eh?  

How can you compare a pair of pants with a full face veil?

Me? In my opinion they both are irrelevant.

Knowing what I know, based on what has been brought to our attention here, neither pants, nor scarves, hats or veils, are of any consequence. It wouldn't be worth discussing were there not the issue of potential discrimination.

Lawyer speak again Quill ?

nicko wrote:Lawyer speak again Quill ?

All right.  All the words that have been used in this tread, can be spoken in a hearing.  Donch'a you think the lawyers have already considered them?

Let the Medical Council do it's job.

nicko wrote:Nuns don't wear face coverings, and there's nothing in the Quran about covering the face  ! It only says "women should dress modestly"  !

Which is a) subject to interpretation and b) why plenty of Muslim women feel no need to cover their faces.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:I often wonder what the Children of these Veil wearing Women think when they want to look at their Mothers face ?   I know they take them off when at home, but a young Child wants to see their Moms face all the time .   I may be wrong but that's how I "see it" !

To such children, a mother in a veil is the proper way.  I imagine that child is no different than a Mexican child who observes a father with a sarape.  Or a Polynesian child who sees his parents in ear-rings.

Indeed, how does your child feel when he sees you in pants.  Weird, eh?  

We, as humans, have faces that hold a multitude of expressions and subtle nuances of communication.  It's unique to us.  What about if the doctor was deaf, and had to rely on lipreading?   What then?

When you want to be sure of what someone is saying then you look them in the eye, which is why nuances get lost on texts etc. I’ve seen the eyes of covered Muslim women
and had no trouble seeing when they were smiling or being sincere.

And, if he was hard of hearing he’d have said so to make his case more plausible. He didn’t, so I’m guessing he just didn’t like her face covering.

Maybe he's entitled not to like it and considers it a hinderance to a proper consultation. His surgery his rules at least up to a sensible point. She should have respectfully removed the veil before being asked while in the consultation.

Apparently, many many observant Muslims were raised to believe that veiling and/or face covering was a choice that was entirely up to the woman, and that only the hardcore Islamist factions force the issue. Something I didn't know ...

Vintage wrote:Maybe he's entitled not to like it and considers it a hinderance to a proper consultation. His surgery his rules at least up to a sensible point. She should have respectfully removed the veil before being asked while in the consultation.

That’s fair enough but that not what he claimed...is it? He said he couldn’t hear. So either he lied or he’s hard of hearing or...he lied.

People are afraid to say what they mean these days because if it isn't the 'party line' they will be accused of being racist, xenophobic, divisive and anything else some 'right on' person thinks up.

Vintage wrote:People are afraid to say what they mean these days because if it isn't the 'party line' they will be accused of being racist, xenophobic, divisive and anything else some 'right on' person thinks up.

v

Okay I understand all of that, and I tend to agree, but that’s not what he said, is it?
So he must be a liar or you’re making assumptions on his behalf because...?

Someone has to.

Vintage wrote:Someone has to.

No they don’t?
He already said why he asked her to remove it. Why are some of you changing his story for him or giving alternative versions?
You must assume then, that he’s lying or else his story makes little sense to you so you need to reinvent his truth for him.

I’m confused.

I don't know if he is a liar, I don't see why he should be, except that if he didn't like the face veil and it irritated him he'd still be the bad guy or maybe even worse than now, if he actually said so.
I don't know what actually happened but I don't agree with wearing such a garment in this country. I also believe
anyone that does wear one, should in certain circumstances,at the very least,voluntarily remove it as a gesture to others they are dealing with of a different culture and to be polite - give and take, be respectful and be respected.

They are all fair comments but he said he couldn’t hear her.
So that’s either true or it isn’t.

I don’t see why we are trying to change the goalposts.

Maybe he couldn't hear her, maybe its an excuse because of the political climate at this time as I said.
I have tinnitus sometimes its not too bad and I hardly notice and people can speak to me from another room and its ok sometimes its bad especially when I 'm tired or stressed, then I find it a lot easier to see someone's face when they are speaking to me, even if they are in another room as long as I can see them.
Anyway I don't think its the woman so much as her husband - see Fred's comments.

Yes I know all of that, I’ve agreed about PC and I also read it was the woman’s husband who made a scene but that doesn’t change the story about the fact that he couldn’t hear her.

I don’t buy it, for all the reasons I’ve said. All the other stuff about “why does she need to wear a face-covering Blah Blah” is all just irrelevant waffle.

He said he couldn’t hear her. I don’t buy it.

Well I'm going to blah blah some more because it is relevant.

Why are some people allowed to be offended over anything and make a huge fuss that could cost someone their livelihood but others because of their culture and colour are not allowed to be offended about anything.
If this doctor had said he'd asked her to remove her veil because it offended him and this had become common knowledge what do you think the reaction would be? Then again you may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Okay well that’s a different topic to be fair. I’m really only interested in this doctor’s claim.

I don’t mind answering that somewhere else.

Ok you reckon he is lying, why?
He's a racist
He's genuinely offended by the face veil but if he said so there would still be an almighty fuss because of who he apparently is.
Could be that he actually does find it difficult to conduct a consultation in those circumstances

eddie wrote:

Vintage wrote:Someone has to.

No they don’t?
He already said why he asked her to remove it. Why are some of you changing his story for him or giving alternative versions?
You must assume then, that he’s lying or else his story makes little sense to you so you need to reinvent his truth for him.

I’m confused.

Why are you so insistant that he was lying?
He says he was unable to hear her explain her childs symptoms. Maybe she spoke softly, maybe she had a strong accent., taking away the face covering that covered her mouth would have helped him SEE as well as hear what was being said....you dont accept any of that..

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

No they don’t?
He already said why he asked her to remove it. Why are some of you changing his story for him or giving alternative versions?
You must assume then, that he’s lying or else his story makes little sense to you so you need to reinvent his truth for him.

I’m confused.

Why are you so insistant that he was lying?

Well, the fact that he doesn't want to go through with the hearing is a strong suggestion that he doesn't want to face the evidence.  It's furtive behavior, at best.

Syl wrote:He says he was unable to hear her explain her childs symptoms. Maybe she spoke softly, maybe she had a strong accent., taking away the face covering that covered her mouth would have helped him SEE as well as hear what was being said....you dont accept any of that..

All good issues to be raised at a hearing.  

Whatever the claim, the Medical Council will be able to hear her...and the defense will be able to demonstrate crucial evidence of her alleged inaudibility, whatever the cause.  As they say, proof is in the pudding.  If the veil presents a medical disability interfering with 'patient care', the Medical Council can make that determination.

His words are.... ‘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.’

You may interpret that as 'furtive behaviour', it sounds to me like he, along with many other doctors, teachers, and people who deal with the public in a professional nature, are just sick and tired of the pc rubbish that is preventing them carrying out their chosen profession to the best of their ability.

Couldn't agree more re the above post.

+1

Syl wrote:His words are.... ‘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.’

You may interpret that as 'furtive behaviour', it sounds to me like he, along with many other doctors, teachers, and people who deal with the public in a professional nature, are just sick and tired of the pc rubbish that is preventing them carrying out their chosen profession to the best of their ability.

Maybe I'm jaundiced, but I've seen too much of this kind of behavior from crooks.  I'm innocent.  Stop looking into my behavior.  Why don't you people just believe me?  It's also very reminiscent of the behavior of some bad guys I've prosecuted…if you believed all these people, there should be no crime, right?  So...why is there still crime?

You are gushing about professional people: major injustice…doctors are leaving in droves…doctor’s quest to perform the very finest…people who deal with the public in a professional nature…carrying out their chosen profession to the best of their ability. If you won’t accept denial from someone who has been accused of rape, you shouldn’t accept denial from this doctor.  What is the difference?  Money?  Privilege?  

Just because you are impressed doesn't impress me at all. Nothing justifies breaking the rules.  We have procedures to handle these matters.  If you break the rules for one privileged person, you would break the rules any time it suits your fancy.

Not a good practice.

Its not like he robbed the woman is it, he just asked for whatever reason for her to remove her veil temporarily in an enclosed space hardly a crime, whatever the reason. The whole thing is ridiculous. How has he broken any rules?
Where is the equality we keep hearing about when what is probably an innocent action is blown out of proportion because someone decided to be offended, yet many others in the community are offended by others actions but get ignored, ridiculed or labelled racist and xenophobes because usually they happen to be white.

Vintage wrote:Its not like he robbed the woman is it, he just asked for whatever reason for her to remove her veil temporarily in an enclosed space hardly a crime, whatever the reason.

So you shouldn't mind if the Medical Council looks into it, eh?

Vintage wrote:The whole thing is ridiculous. How has he broken any rules?

There's a rule against discrimination. I understand you don't like it, but that's because you are a privileged, white person

Vintage wrote:Where is the equality we keep hearing about when what is probably an innocent action is blown out of proportion because someone decided to be offended, yet many others in the community are offended by others actions but get ignored, ridiculed or labelled racist and xenophobes because usually they happen to be white.

There's been no determination pursuant to Hearing.

Waste of time, there is no law about requesting removal of a face veil, its not discrimination, its required in courts of law so its a perfectly reasonable request in the circumstances, which the woman complied with and replaced the veil before she left presumably, if she felt discriminated by the request she should have refused and asked to see another doctor, alternatively she could have taken a chaperone of her choice with her or asked that one be provided at the consultation, sounds as though she was perfectly happy not to have a chaperone and happy to comply with the doctor's request.

What a ridiculous crybaby of a doctor. 
I'm a Christian but I certainly would not want him as my GP. I cannot stand the sight of  face coverings either but frankly, if I was paid the extremely handsome salary of a doctor I would put up with slight inconveniences & irritations, and get on with the bloody job. 

He even moaned that he got dirty looks from her OH. What a panto.

He's wailing that he would leave the profession - so fuck off then!  Where is he going to get a new job that will pay him as well?


He "FACES" a hearing - it does not automatically mean that one would take place. I'm sure that with the vast majority of cases where the GMC investigates a complaint, a simple  letter of explanation from the doc will suffice and a formal  'hearing' is not usually necessary.


Why did he need to wail about this in public, like a precious little snowflake? Isn't it unethical to publicise a legal case while it is being considered?
 

Ironically, the GMC are notoriously lenient. No matter what 'crimes' a doc commits, he gets a slapped wrist at most. It's exceptionally rare that a doc is ever struck off outright.  


Grow up & man up. The GMC are obliged to investigate complaints they receive, however minor.  It's their job.

Vintage wrote:Waste of time, there is no law about requesting removal of a face veil, its not discrimination, its required in courts of law so its a perfectly reasonable request in the circumstances, which the woman complied with and replaced the veil before she left presumably, if she felt discriminated by the request she should have refused and asked to see another doctor, alternatively she could have taken a chaperone of her choice with her or asked that one be provided at the consultation, sounds as though she was perfectly happy not to have a chaperone and happy to comply with the doctor's request.

What is your precedent?  Under-present UK anti-discrimination laws it becomes a question of fact as to whether the practice is anti-religious, anti-ethnic, or discriminatory.  Discrimination is not a feeling, it's a fact.  Based on the proffered reasons in defense, I can tell you right now the test will be whether she can be understood with the veil on.  If there is no valid "patient safety" justification, his reasoning must be a pretext.

I think your real argument is with the fact that anti-discrimination laws exist in general.  Being white and privileged yourself, you don't see the necessity of them.  If you don't like a given law, your remedy is to go to the legislature and try to change it.  It's not wise to ignore laws because you think they are pc.

Vintage wrote:...its required in courts of law so its a perfectly reasonable request in the circumstances,

What is reasonable is a question of fact.  There is no uniform standard.  Courts don't allow cameras or recording devices either, but that doesn't mean they are outlawed out of court.  Courts have their reasons, and the justification (under the circumstances) is the basis or standard of the reasonableness.

Which brings us back to the original point: this case is ripe for a Hearing.  All of your exceptions and justifications demand to be adjudicated.  The proper forum for adjudication is a Hearing.

Reduced to simplest terms, your argument is to ignore the law.  Try that with your next parking ticket, and soon you'll find your vehicle booted and undriveable.

Jules wrote:He's wailing that he would leave the profession - so fuck off then!  Where is he going to get a new job that will pay him as well?


He "FACES" a hearing - it does not automatically mean that one would take place. I'm sure that with the vast majority of cases where the GMC investigates a complaint, a simple  letter of explanation from the doc will suffice and a formal  'hearing' is not usually necessary.


Why did he need to wail about this in public, like a precious little snowflake? Isn't it unethical to publicise a legal case while it is being considered?
 

Ironically, the GMC are notoriously lenient. No matter what 'crimes' a doc commits, he gets a slapped wrist at most. It's exceptionally rare that a doc is ever struck off outright.  


Grow up & man up. The GMC are obliged to investigate complaints they receive, however minor.  It's their job.

This made me laugh but also expresses exactly what I feel about the whole thing but I also think the woman in question is at fault as well. Both sides reek of Look At Poor Me, I Have Been Persecuted!!!!!

Perhaps if a hearing occurs, they can begin to act like adults and seek a amicable resolution.

Haha thank you, Cass. It's probably the woman's daft husband making all the fuss. 

Yeah I agree with you Jules. And I don’t buy the fact he couldn’t hear her through some cloth.
Load of bollocks.

Nothing worse when people make up a load of crap and simple defend a misogynistic symbol. 

Sorry but Muslim women should remove the face veil when speaking to people. As communication is not just based on speech and its tone but the expressions that people make. Thus to hide this goes against evolutionion itself it understandfing people when we speak to them. Of course the ignorant will argue off things like the mobile. Which if they had any sense know. That people often mistake what someone has said, simple because they cannot see their facial expressions.

I dont care whether the doctor here was racist or not. That is a red herrring, but for so called liberals to defend this misogynistic symbol, is beyond the pale. They will often defend this claiming they do this to show their devotion to god. Nope, they do not, because the moment in doors, they will revert to wearing western clothers. So why outside? Its very simple. Its not a choice on what to wear, as seen, they revert to western clothees when in doors and its not a view on modesty. As again they do not do so indoors either. Its simple a form of male slavery over women. That they have to cover up, based on outdated culturalism. That has formed in a part of the world that looks to control women. If this is down to religion, then everyday these women fall foul to this, when they are indoors. Being as again they revert to western clothes. 

Hence its never a choice as to why women wear this. Its simple drummed into them with indoctrination. That if they do not wear, they will suffer in a make belief afterlife. Hence fear is used to make women wear this. If not that, husbands force their wives to wear and this is often women brought up into Wahabbism. Forced also into arranged marriages.

So when people argue off racism here, frankly, those claiming this are defending a misogynistic symbol and belief system. They defending women being treated like slaves. They are treating women like property. So you want to get angered over a GP wanting to speak face to face with a woman over her ill daughter and think this is acrime? Then I am sorry, you are also enabling this 7th century form of culture, that enslaves women, to the poor misogynistic nature of the men in this wahhabist faith

I never once said he was racist nor did I imply it, let alone think it?

eddie wrote:I never once said he was racist nor did I imply it, let alone think it?

Well what do you think it was based upon?
You claimed he could  hear properly. I tell you what. Place a sheet over your head and then try to teach your daughter for the next year and see whteher she can understand you properly? The reality is Muslim children are not taught this way in the home, as the mothers do not dress this way at home. Hence your point on the children growing up was so poor it was beyond belief.

Stop defending the slavery of women