BradfordToday welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected] or via the website. Please include your full name, daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). We received the following in repsonse to 'AMJ, others counter Jalsa Salana allegations with 'verified information',' published Feb. 3.
The recent response from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at (AMJ) regarding concerns raised by residents, including myself, does little to address the real issue at hand: the transparency of decisions being made in Bradford. Instead of providing clear answers, their response relies on selective information, deflection, and outright dismissal of legitimate concerns.
First, regarding gag orders, AMJ states they have not issued any legal restrictions. However, the real question is whether individuals involved in legal disputes, particularly the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) case, feel restricted from speaking out due to potential repercussions. Multiple residents declined to comment, even when offered anonymity, which to me suggests that legal or financial constraints may be preventing open discussion. Simply denying responsibility does not mean such restrictions do not exist.
Second, regarding the temporary cell tower, AMJ attempts to discredit concerns by citing Rogers' involvement. However, the real issue is why residents were initially given conflicting information about the legitimacy of the tower. This pattern of vague or misleading responses contributes to the divisive atmosphere this issue has created in the municipality.
Third, the Ministry of Transportation claims that the placement of EV charging stations was based on an “equitable geographic distribution” plan. However, this does not explain why six of the 10 stations in Bradford are being placed on AMJ property — a site surrounded by agricultural zoning with no real public amenities. Even more concerning, provincial taxpayers are footing a $1.4-million bill for EV stations on AMJ land, making it the second largest recipient of this funding, beating out other companies such as Hilton. If geography was truly the main factor, how did AMJ receive thirty charging stations across Ontario, second only to Marriott? The ministry has failed to provide a transparent breakdown of why this location was prioritized over others that would better serve the Bradford community. Even AMJ admits they have not yet accepted funds or approved installations. This brings the question of why was their site included in the announcement at all? If these chargers were genuinely meant for public benefit and to improve rural access to EV chargers then the selection process should have been clear, transparent and easily justified, yet it wasn't.
Fourth, AMJ continues to push for hosting large-scale events on agricultural land, despite community opposition and infrastructure concerns. The attempt to compare their Bradford gathering to the United Kingdom branch’s farmland events ignores a key difference; in Bradford, there is an ongoing battle over whether agricultural lands should be protected or not. Public sentiment remains divided, yet AMJ insists on forcing through their plans rather than respecting the concerns of those who live here year-round.
Finally, AMJ and their supporters suggest that criticism of their actions is rooted in misinformation or bad faith. This is a shameful attempt to dismiss valid concerns about infrastructure, land use, and ethical leadership in government. Instead of addressing the core issue of whether political donations, lobbying, and influence are shaping municipal decisions, they have blatantly attempted to shift the discussion away from accountability to benefit their organization.
At its core, this debate is not about AMJ as a religious group, nor is it about the right to hold events. It is about whether decisions in Bradford are being made in the best interests of the public or in the interests of those with political connections and influence.
Residents should not accept half-truths and evasive answers. We must continue demanding transparency from Mayor James Leduc and insist that decisions affecting our community should not be made for special interest groups.
Matthew Keenan
East Gwillimbury
