| | | Ex-Mateen colleague: employer “did nothing because he was Muslim”
Power Line by Paul Mirengoff
A former Fort Pierce police officer who once worked with Omar Mateen for G4S Security says that Mateen routinely made homophobic and racial comments. In addition, he talked about killing people.
The former officer, Daniel Gilroy, says he complained to his employer several times, but it did nothing in response. Why? According to Gilroy, it failed to act because Mateen is Muslim.
Gilroy also says he quit his job with G4S because “everything [Mateen] said was toxic” and because Mateen stalked him via multiple text messages — 20 or 30 a day — and phone messages.
At this point, I’ve seen nothing that corroborates Gilroy’s account of Mateen’s on-the-job utterances; nor is it clear how Gilroy knows his former employer’s motive for not taking action against Mateen. It’s worth following this aspect of the story, though, to see the extent, if any, to which it can be confirmed.
We hear plenty of talk, much of it uncorroborated, about discrimination against Muslims, especially following terrorist attacks. Indeed, soon after the attacks on 9/11, the EEOC launched an initiative to counter what it expected to be a backlash in the form of employment discrimination.
It wouldn’t be surprising if some employers fail to discipline Muslims who would be punished but for their religion, due to a combination of political correctness and fear of being sued. Nor would it be surprising if law enforcement agencies are reluctant to follow leads, or follow through on them, for similar reasons.
I hope the Orlando murders will prompt a inquiry into the extent to which the latter phenomenon exists.
Via Rich Lowry. |
|
