Religious freedom in Canada: Oklahoma senator brings Bill C-9 concerns to Ottawa
PBC | Speech Watch | Published October 5, 2026 | Source review: October 5, 2026
An American state lawmaker raises a Canadian question
Oklahoma State Senator Shane Jett was advertised as bringing concerns about religious freedom in Canada to an Ottawa event advertised for October 5 at Capital City Bikers’ Church. Drea Humphrey’s reporting and a separate Intercessors for America account describe the visit and the event, “Are Canadian Christians Safe?” This review confirms the announced event, not that every advertised speaker has appeared or what was ultimately said there. [1–3]
Jett is a Republican member of the Oklahoma legislature, not a member of the United States Senate. His official state profile confirms that he has served in the Oklahoma Senate since 2020. His intervention should therefore be described as a state lawmaker’s advocacy, not an official finding or diplomatic position of the U.S. government. [4]
The Facebook post supplied to PBC begins: “Persecution of Christians in Canada to be called out in Ottawa by U.S. lawmaker.” Its preview refers to church burnings, imprisoned pastors, educators and MAID. The attached image presents an October 2 letter addressed to Canadian MPs under Jett’s name. Humphrey’s associated article quotes that letter and reports his call to restore a religious-expression defence removed by Bill C-9. [1–2]
The legal change at the centre of the warning is real
Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, is no longer merely a proposal. Parliament’s official record confirms royal assent on June 18, 2026. Justice Canada identifies July 18, 2026 as its coming-into-force date. [5–7]
The enacted text repeals Criminal Code paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b): the specific good-faith religious-opinion defence applicable to the offences of wilfully promoting hatred and wilfully promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust. A report that this defence was removed is supported by the legislation itself, not just by the senator’s criticism. [5]
For people who value freedom of conscience and religious teaching, asking why Parliament removed an express safeguard — and how prosecutors will apply the remaining law — is a legitimate accountability question.
Removing a defence is not the same as banning the Bible
The same enacted law includes a clarification covering statements on matters of public interest, including religious, educational, political and scientific statements, where they do not wilfully promote hatred. It also defines hatred as an intense and extreme emotion associated with “vilification and detestation,” and excludes expression that merely discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. [5]
Justice Canada says that good-faith preaching, scriptural readings and religious teaching do not meet the offences’ threshold. That is the government’s explanation of the law, not a guarantee about every future investigation, prosecution or judicial decision. [7]
Both facts belong in the discussion: Parliament removed a specific defence, and the remaining offences still have legal elements that must be proved. The sources reviewed do not establish a blanket prohibition on scripture, Christian belief or peaceful worship.
The Act also creates offences addressing intimidation and obstruction of access to places of worship, including churches and other religious institutions. Any assessment of its effect on religious freedom should examine those protections alongside the controversial repeal. [5,7]
The wider allegations need their own evidence
The post groups several issues under the heading of persecution. That is an advocacy interpretation, not a single finding established by announcing a public event or circulating a politician’s letter.
Humphrey’s article itself acknowledges that not every church fire has been determined to be arson or religiously motivated. Its combined count of burned or vandalized churches should not be retold as a count of proven anti-Christian arsons. This review does not independently validate that tally. [2]
Likewise, claims about pastors’ arrests, educators losing work, military prayer restrictions or pressure surrounding MAID require the particular order, employment record, policy or investigation. Establishing that an enforcement action happened is different from proving that someone was punished solely for holding Christian beliefs. Those individual claims are not adjudicated in this brief.
The questions worth putting to Ottawa
Parliamentarians and justice officials should explain why the religious-opinion defence was removed, how lawful religious expression will be protected in practice, and what safeguards exist against overbroad enforcement. Critics should identify the precise conduct, provision and evidence behind each example they cite.
Protecting churches from intimidation and destruction and protecting peaceful religious expression are compatible responsibilities. Jett’s intervention gives that discussion a cross-border audience. The strongest case for accountability rests on the actual law and documented cases, not on treating every concern as already proven — or dismissing it because a critic raised it.
Sources and limits
[1] Original Facebook lead, Drea Humphrey. Post opening and truncated preview recovered; attached letter image captured and OCR-extracted. Full Facebook body was not recovered. The image is a circulated copy, not an independently authenticated Senate-hosted original. Raw contact details and signature imagery are not reproduced here. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/197btS6egh/?mibextid=wwXIfr
[2] Drea Humphrey, Rebel News, October 5, 2026: “Are Canadian Christians safe? U.S. state senator in Ottawa raising religious freedom concerns.” Associated reporting, letter quotations and advertised event; advocacy framing distinguished from findings. https://www.rebelnews.com/are_canadian_christians_safe_us_state_senator_in_ottawa_raising_religious_freedom_concerns
[3] Intercessors for America: “When Canadians Lose Their Freedoms.” Participant-linked advocacy account of the planned trip and documentary/event. Corroborates the announcement, not every underlying allegation. https://ifapray.org/blog/when-canadian-christians-need-prayer-a-conversation-worth-watching/
[4] Oklahoma Senate: Shane Jett official member profile. https://oksenate.gov/senators/shane-jett
[5] Parliament of Canada: Bill C-9, royal-assent text; especially section 4, the hatred definition and section 11.1 clarification. https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/bill/C-9/royal-assent
[6] Parliament of Canada: LEGISinfo, Bill C-9, 45th Parliament, first session; royal assent June 18, 2026. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-9
[7] Justice Canada: Combatting Hate Act backgrounder, modified August 25, 2026; commencement, offence scope, religious-defence repeal and government explanation. https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c9
This is a source-based news and policy article, not legal advice. No claim is made to have watched the October 5 event or completed a case-by-case investigation of the post’s broader allegations.