French subsidiaries of McDonald’s, an American company, sell beer in their restaurants, as French law allows. American law, on the other hand, does not.
Are we gonna charge all the French McDonad’s executives for selling beer, contrary to American law?
I’m not sure that American McDonald’s refusal to sell beer has anything to do with US law, but more as a matter of policy.
Generally laws apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of a country but a country can pass laws which apply to its citizens anywhere. An example is laws which make it a crime to engage in sex with minors. An American can be charged even if it was not a crime where he did it.
I still think the law is quite silly but it’s not like it is something new or unheard of. I guess he could have renounced his US citizenship.
Where did you see that the guy was an American citizen? American resident -yes, American citizen -no.
The US isn’t superceding other countries. It’s simply saying that if you aid and abet a US company in breaking a US law you will be prosecuted when you come to the US. The US (and Canada and Botswana and Belgium and Greece and anybody else) can enact laws making certain acts illegal in their country. If a person chooses to aid that illegal act, even from another country, they will be criminally liable if they step foot in the country that passed the law. That’s not superceding another country’s laws.
You are complaining about alleged US attempts to supercede all other countries, yet it’s Canada who is trying to dictate who can be prosecuted in the US. That’s overstepping their bounds. They are attempting to infringe on US sovereignty.
Nope. There isn’t a federal statute banning American companies from selling beer while there is a statute banning trade with Cuba.
It is superceding Canadian laws, if following the US law would have forced the guy to break Canadian law.
Well, that was a stupid statement now wasn’t it?
Where can you find any law that says “McDonald’s Cannot sell beer in America”? Hmm…lemme look here…it appears…that there is no fucking law like that. THat would most likely be an internal policy to add to the “family feel” of McDonalds stores.
Hell, Togo’s sells beer here and I don’t see anyone arresting the owners for that. If McDonalds had franchises, and the owner wanted to get a beer and wine license, he could then sell beer.
Since this guy violated American laws while aiding an American company while in Canada, I’d say he’s guilty as hell and should breathe a sigh of relief at only 51 months.
Add in my vote for “no tears for the convicted” and one more vote for “Helms-Burton is a stupid fucking law”.
Pfft. Canadians.
Sam
You’re right. My bad. Thought there was and went off looking for a link and couldn’t find one. I’m gonna get back to this.
However, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act is a response to Helms-Burton which allows for lawsuits against foreign countries doing business with Cuba. Which infringes on Canadian sovereignty.
No. It’s simply telling you what’s going to happen if you do it and come to the US. Nobody forced this guy to work for this company and sell stuff to Cuba. He put himself in a position where he was caught between two laws. He had a lot of choices. He could work for another company that doesn’t trade with Cuba. He could trade with Cuba and not take the promotion in the US.
And why is it automatically the US’s fault for the conflict? The Canadian Act was passed specifically in response to Helms-Burton. A portion of the law basically says that if the Canadian Attorney General tells you so, you can’t comply with a US law. Who’s putting the guy in the bad position? It was Canada that created the choice he had to make. Furthermore, the Canadian law attempts to dictate who the US can prosecute. I don’t have a major problem with the parts of the Act that forbid compliance with subpoenas since it is Canada’s right to control what happens on their soil. But it is incredibly arrogant for Canada to believe that they can tell the US what to do with a person on US soil.
Two countries passed conflicting laws that require a choice. The choice might be difficult, but the US law is not superceding Canadian law. The US did not prosecute a Canadian employee of a Canadian company who traded with Cuba. It prosecuted a Canadian who worked for an American company that was violating American law.
The lawsuit provision has been, as far as I know, suspended by Presidents Clinton and Bush so it hasn’t taken effect. But I agree with you that the lawsuit provision is a violation of sovereignty at least in my way of looking at it.
I just want to reiterate that I don’t like Helms-Burton. But the prosecution followed recognized international legal principles: A person who aids a crime in a foreign country can be tried in that foreign country. The trial is not an infringement of Canadian sovereignty. In fact, the Canadian Act attempts to infringe on US sovereignty.
>> I guess he could have renounced his US citizenship.
>> Where did you see that the guy was an American citizen?
>> American resident -yes, American citizen -no.
Ok, my point is that if he want to live by Canadian law he can stay in Canada. I do not think it is reasonable for him to live in the US and be exempt from US law.
Suppose the US passes a law which says a child molestor will be prosecuted in the US even if the act was not a crime where he did it. Well, what it means is that if you have sex with children you know you should stay away from the US and if you go to the US then you know what to expect.
The law is the law even if you disagree with it. This law seems to be perfectly legal. At the same time I agree it is perfectly stupid and is the cause of unnecessary problems for the US.
I have a vague recollection of some years ago where the CEO of some big Spanish chain of hotels which had hotels in Cuba was denied entry to the USA on the same grounds. Legal, yes, but incredibly stupid and asking for trouble. Next thing you know Spain is telling Holiday Inn they can’t do business in Spain.
I know it doesn’t literally mean this, but it sounds like Canadians are legally obligated to do business with Cuba. I have this image of mounties breaking down your door and forcing you to buy cigars.
Ok, how about this:
There are federal laws regarding minimum wages, workplace safety and other labor issues. To save money, companies (such as GM, Nike and others) set up factories overseas where they pay wages that are below the US minimum wage, and maintain standards that would be in violation of US health and safety regulations. Any company that does business with these overseas factories is therefore aiding a US business in violating US laws.
Why don’t we arrest them?
Jesus, don’t they even teach you guys how to bold properly? You totally neglected to highlight the first six words. The unmistakable import of those six words is that the other dozen or so convictions were based on conduct while he was living and doing business in America. Fuck 'im.
Oh, and another vote here for immediately ending the embargo. I’ve actually thought of flaunting it myself by taking a vacation in Cuba.
It would make more sense to say that the prosecutors in the Sabzali case are flaunting the law. You, on the other hand, are contemplating flouting the law.
I’m having Friday evening drinks with two friends from Hamilton. If they’ve caught wind of this, I’m gonna end up with the tab tonight…
Speaking of flaunting, I’m going to flaunt my law ignorance here. If the Supreme Court overturns a case, calling something unconstitutional, it often leads to elimination of legistalive acts. Is that limited to Supreme Court decisions? Couldn’t this court in Philadelphia do the same thing? Couldn’t they say, “Well, this whole Helms-Burton Act is horse hockey,” and send the man on his way?
No. No. No. You are missing an important point. The US labour laws (and for that matter any US law that banned the sale of beer in Macdonalds, if there was one) do not extend outside the US. As laws do not unless they are expressly stated to do so. In other words in both the examples you have given, what happens overseas (selling beer, ripping off workers) IS NOT a violation of US law, because the laws do not even attempt to control those activites outside the US.
Helms Burton is different in that it does and is expressed to have certain extraterritorial effects, which the guy in question breached.
As others have said, such laws while not usual, are also not groundbreaking.
And a hearty fuck you to Helms Burton, just for the record.
minty green, you accuse me of not being able to read the article properly. I didn’t respond to your post as I wasn’t quite sure what you were getting at until I read the above. As such, may I redirect you to my OP, whereupon I stated
and again, responding to Robb’s post:
May I respectfully (and jokingly; I’ve calmed down now) submit that you read the entire OP?
What it seems the problem is here is the question of which laws take precedence. As noted in the article, all companies doing trading were international subsidiaries of the company; Canadian, British, and Italian. As such, they should first and foremost be subject to the laws of the country in which they (the subsidiary) are headquartered.
Furthermore, the amount of trade with Cuba was minimal. Less than 1% ($48,000) of the company’s net profits. I highly doubt that company executives are going to risk their careers and lives over such a trivial amount. This leads me to believe that they lacked criminal intent.
All this points to the conclusion that these executives, after legal advice, found that it was okay for a Canadian company (subsidiary of an American one) to exploit an available market.
Yeah. Hang 'em high for their actions in the States. From the looks of it, they had 'em cold for it. From the 13 counts committed in the States, Sabzali was still liable for many, many years in prison. Why introduce the powderkeg that was the 7 Canadian “violations?” He’s going to jail already. For a long time.
Hence my OP. There is no reason to introduce the potential firestorm that those 7 charges represent except to enforce something as dim-witted and arrogant as the Helms-Burton law. It makes no sense whatsoever.
At least we all agree that Helms-Burton sucks.
Strictly speaking, Aguecheek, I was responding to Feynn in that last post. My first post, pointing out that your guy can go pound rocks because he caused an American company to violate American law, was directed at you.
And Buckner, I meant exactly what I said:
I flaunt my alleged misuse of the word in their general direction.
How about this, then. A French McDonald’s can sell a beer to a 14 year old kid…
Yes, but see my post above. Any US law on underage drinking applies only in the US in the absence of a specific statement to the contrary.
So McDonalds would not be breaching any US law by selling a 14 yr old a beer in France.