Although the city has insisted it's 2010 Winter Games By-law is meant to prevent guerrilla advertising and not “political expression or the right to lawful protest", anti-Olympic protesters have rightfully warned that the bylaw could easily be used to curtail people’s rights and freedoms.

The stand-out clause in the bylaw is section 4B, which states that no one can bring onto city land any object, including any rock, stick, or glass or metal bottle useable as a weapon; voice amplification equipment including any megaphone; and anything that makes noise that interferes with the enjoyment of entertainment on city land by other persons; or distribute any advertising material or install or carry any sign unless licensed to do so by the city.

* Any object that could be used as a weapon? So, no pens?

* Anything that makes noise that could interfere with people’s enjoyment or entertainment? These guys will be banned, right?

* Any sign not licensed by the city? Does that mean I can’t bring this to a hockey game?

Considering the vague and enveloping language of the bylaw, all these ridiculous examples are technically possible.

But it’s once you look at past examples of how Olympic host cities have used similar bylaws to infringe upon freedoms of the press, assembly and speech, and it starts to look pretty scary. Vancouver’s bylaw could easily be used to quickly stamp out anything that smells of dissent.

Making matters worse, legislation going before the provincial government will give the city some rather draconian power to enforce this bylaw – allowing police to go into someone’s home if they display a sign that isn’t “celebratory” in nature and punish them with a maximum of a $10,000 fine or six months in jail.

While the city insists the bylaw is to protect Olympic sponsors and stop ambush advertising and will not be used to crackdown on protesters, they refused to make specific amendments in the bylaw stating that political protest and free speech would be respected.

Instead, the city has employed the “trust us” approach. But, once again, considering this city’s past history in respecting protest, one can understand why activists would be slightly hesitant to take their word for it.

After months of protest and a legal challenge, it appears the city has finally decided to revisit the bylaw. Hopefully, the city will tighten up its language and reaffirm people’s right to assembly, protest and free speech. Considering what a poor job the city did the first time with the bylaw, everyone should keep a close on the final draft and ensure that our Charter rights are protected.

I do believe it was the city’s primary intention to protect the Games’ official sponsors. But they purposefully kept the language vague to ensure that no third-party advertisers could find a loophole. When I spoke with the city staffer in charge of the bylaw, Paul Henderson, about concerns over newspaper distribution for our Megaphone vendors , he said we were safe, but wouldn't add an amendment specifying so in case a non-official Olympic sponsor decided to create a newspaper as their form of ambush advertising.

But I also do believe that if the bylaw gave the city the power to quickly silence some pesky protesters, it would be an added bonus for them.

The entire ordeal has left me with a sicking reminder of how corporate interests have come to trump our human rights. The fact that the need to protect Olympic sponsors is so great that a city is willing to challenge people’s basic freedoms shows just how much power we have handed over to corporations — all at the expense of our democratic rights.