Bolsonaro Vetoes Mandatory Use of Masks in Shops, Schools and Churches

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – President Jair Bolsonaro signed a law requiring the mandatory wearing of masks in public for the duration of the novel coronavirus pandemic. However, Bolsonaro vetoed a paragraph mandating the wearing of masks in commercial establishments, church buildings, and educational institutions.

The text was published on Friday, July 3rd, in the Federal Gazette (DOU).

The President also vetoed the enforcement of fines for those violating the rules, as well as the government’s obligation to distribute masks to the most needy populace. However, the federal law, with vetoes, does not overrule local laws that enforce the wearing of masks.

The bill, as passed in the Chamber and Senate, determines that covering one’s mouth and nose with masks is mandatory in “public and private areas accessible to the public, on public roads and public transportation”, including buses and App transport vehicles. Public transport companies can block access to passengers who fail to comply with the rules.

However, the section that included in the list “commercial and industrial establishments, church buildings, educational establishments, and other closed places where people gather” was vetoed.

On Thursday, during a social media broadcast, Bolsonaro had anticipated that he would veto the excerpt, claiming that there would be a potential for someone to be fined for not wearing a mask inside their own home. However, the Chamber had advised that nothing in the text led to an interpretation that masks would be compulsory in the home nor that the law would allow home invasion for an eventual inspection.

“Today there were several vetoes to a bill that addressed the mandatory wearing of masks, even inside the home. I vetoed it, right? Nobody’s going into your house to fine you. I could be fined here right now because I’m not wearing a mask,” said Bolsonaro on Thursday.

In justifying the veto sent to Congress, Bolsonaro said that the motion was suggested by the Ministry of Justice, which considered that “other closed places” is a very broad term and “implies a potential violation of the home”. The President also claimed it was not possible to veto only excerpts from a paragraph. As a result, the veto was extended to the entire section that refers to stores, religious temples, and schools.

However, the General Secretariat of the Chamber (SGM) explained that the provision “other closed spaces” refers, as defined by the bill, to “public and private areas accessible to the public,” and never to homes.

Source: O Globo

This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error