With less than a week until the 2010 Olympics officially open on February 12, VANOC is displaying Canadian pride all over the streets of Vancouver. But for some, the flood of Olympic ads is “a restriction to the freedom of expression.”

Billboards, banners, posters and advertisements on TransLink buses all have been bought by VANOC, who has enforced strict rules and regulations to ensure that the sponsors of this year’s Olympics are getting their money’s worth. Most contracts will terminate on March 31, 2010.

There are some, however, who feel that these strict regulations are ridiculous.

“International Olympic Committees [IOC]…are so zealous about guarding their [commercial] rights that they forget that there are civil liberties involved,” said Dr Chris Shaw, an anti-Olympic activist and a UBC professor of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences.

The current 2010 Olympic bylaw includes restricting handing out any flyers or leaflets near any Olympic arena. It also includes the recent amendments to Bill 13, which bans unauthorized “commercial” signs.Consequences may result in police officers entering businesses and private homes to remove them or dole out fines up to $10,000. Bill 13 does not apply to UBC campus, however, as UBC operates mostly autonomously from the city of Vancouver.

Shaw and his other complainant, UBC Law student Alissa Westergard-Thorpe, filed a lawsuit in October 2009 accusing the city of passing a bylaw that was in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Shaw dropped his charges two weeks ago due to the amendments recently made to the bylaw and financial restrictions. He said he was only “partially satisfied” by the changes.

“We got most of what we wanted in terms of some guarantees about civil liberty and free speech, but we didn’t get everything regarding the voice application and certainly not with regards to commercial aspects,” said Shaw. “If I had more time and money, I would have fought it further.”

Vision Vancouver Councilor Geoff Meggs said that with the amendment, there isn’t anything new in the bylaw that wasn’t already illegal. Rather, the bylaw merely permits the city to have a quicker response to illegal activities such as graffiti and ambush marketing, a marketing technique where advertisers do not pay a sponsorship fee and latch onto an event.

Already, at least two companies—Lululemon and Scotiabank—have been suspected of ambush marketing.

Shaw is concerned about how the laws will be enforced. “Unfortunately, [the bylaw] rests in the hands of a lot of enforcement people, who may not be particularly convergent in law and Charter, and may not understand the bylaw themselves,” he said.

“I think there is a potential for some mayhem to exist because people are trying to enforce things that are still not clearly defined.” Shaw claims that the term “commercial” is too vague.

UBC Olympic Studies Researcher and Professor Arun Mohan explains why VANOC has to have strict rules on ads. “The contract between IOC and VANOC promises that [VANOC] will diligently be using all its legal powers and ensure that no one else uses the protected trademark and that only the official sponsors are promoted,” he said. “If the IOC says you are not doing it properly, then they can remove the Games from you.

“VANOC has to use all legal measures because that’s what IOC mandates. It’s still the IOC’s games but VANOC is just hosting them.”

According to Mohan, to be in “association with the Olympics” can hold enough value for a company to sponsor even with an expected deficit.

Indeed, Whistler Blackcomb has asked for $90 million of funding from the government to cover its expected financial loss for hosting the Games, and official Olympic broadcaster NBC is expected to have a shortfall of a whopping $200 million.

“Sponsors will stop funding for Olympics if they aren’t being recognized as the official sponsors…and sponsors are a huge part of the revenue,” Mohan explained. VANOC’s financial statement reveals that $1 billion of their $1.75 billion operating budget comes from domestic and international sponsorship.

Still, Shaw is not convinced. “When did we decide that we were going to commercialize public space? And the answer is that we didn’t,” he said.

“You cannot justify the Charter based on commercial agreements.”