When the United States announced sanctions against International Criminal Court (ICC) judges last month, including Canadian jurist Kimberly Prost, the response from Ottawa was telling not because of what was said, but because of what wasn’t.
Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand finally acknowledged the issue this week, posting on social media that she had spoken with Prost and reaffirming her faith in the “vital work” of ICC judges. While her words of confidence in Prost’s impartiality were welcome, what stood out most was the glaring omission: no direct criticism of Washington for targeting an independent Canadian judge.
Contrast this with France, which wasted no time in condemning the move as an attack on justice itself. Canada, by comparison, hesitated, tiptoeing around the issue, and only offered quiet assurances behind closed doors. Anand’s office insists she raised concerns with Secretary of State Marco Rubio during her visit to Washington, but Canadians are left to wonder why those concerns weren’t voiced openly and forcefully.
This hesitation undermines Canada’s supposed commitment to a “rules-based international order.” Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy rightly noted that by refusing to push back, the Carney government is abandoning the very institution Canada helped establish. If Canadian judges or diplomats can be sanctioned into silence simply because their work conflicts with U.S. interests, what message does that send about Canada’s sovereignty?
Experts like Mark Kersten have urged Ottawa to adopt a blocking order a straightforward tool that would prevent Canadian banks and businesses from enforcing these politically motivated sanctions. But instead of bold action, we got a muted, almost evasive statement that pretends the real threat doesn’t exist.
Canada cannot afford to be selective about defending international justice. When one of our own judges is sanctioned simply for doing her job, silence isn’t diplomacy it’s complicity. If we truly believe in the impartiality and independence of global courts, then our leaders must defend them, even when it’s uncomfortable for our closest ally.
Anand’s statement may have been intended as reassurance, but in reality it revealed a deeper unease: Ottawa doesn’t want to anger Washington, even at the cost of defending its own. That is not the leadership Canadians expect nor the principled stand the world needs.
