>>70824974>So how would banks be affected then?Banks wouldn't? I don't know where you think I said this.
>You can't say "AnyColour can't do banking in Canada" and that's the end of itThat's not what I said. Blocking bank transactions is what part of being banned from doing business in a country.
>First of all that wouldn't even affect international banking,Don't know why you're bringing up international banking since we're discussing domestically held Canadian bank accounts.
> Courts don't MAKE laws, and there exists no law that lets them do this.I never said courts makes laws. Also yes they do,
>>70824357>LMAO, and then what? Flagged for what?Flagged because their business identification matches up with a database of companies that are banned from doing business in Canada.
>Their employees not getting paid?No because they're banned from doing business in Canada.
>So they're going to block AnyColour from paying their employees from then on and that's supposed to be this great punishment? Yes. I don't know why you think the government would allow a foreign company which has been banned from doing business in that government's country would be allowed to continue doing business in that country simply because they have employees.
>"Sorry we had to keep all your earnings, Canada literally doesn't let us pay you :^)"Yes. And?
>They. Don't. Operate. IN. Canada. You. Complete. Retard. Get. This. Into. Your. Head. Already.Operating in is different from being registered in. You don't seem to understand that definition.
>And then what? You're still not actually describing any meaningful consequences, and that's already going into entirely impossible hypotheticals.The consequences would be further fines and further court cases. If AnyColor continues the Canadian government can actually proceed with criminal action since they have violated a court order.
>Actually that's exactly what a court would doA court will not allow an exploitative company to continue to operate.
>If a ruling would cause more damage than it prevents that ruling would generally be avoidedThat's not how law enforcement works because you would be setting a legal precedent which does not follow legislation which is something courts are very hesitant to do.
>when there is absolutely nothing in reality that matches your inane claims.So how do you think things like sanctions work in the real world? Surely they would be unenforceable and impossible to enact since it would be too complex and would actively harm everybody involved, right?
