The Canadian government said on Monday it detected a China-linked “Spamouflage” campaign that involved bots posting disinformation and propaganda on the social media accounts of members of parliament, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Spamouflage campaign, using networks of new and hijacked social media accounts to post bulk messages, took place in August and September, and targeted dozens of MPs from across the political spectrum, the foreign ministry said in a statement.

The messages included accusations against the MPs of criminal and ethical violations, a claim that Hawaiian wildfires were caused by a secret U.S. military “weather weapon,” and deepfake videos.

Thousands of such comments in English and French were posted on MPs’ Facebook and X accounts, and the government worked with the platforms to get the bot networks removed.

“This campaign could discourage and make it difficult for MPs to carry out their duties and may dissuade MPs and diaspora communities in Canada from speaking out on issues which concern them,” said a foreign ministry report about the incident.

China-Canada relations turned icy in late 2018 when Canadian police detained a Chinese telecommunications executive. Shortly after, Beijing arrested two Canadians on spying charges. All three have since been released.

Ottawa has also accused Beijing of trying to interfere in its affairs through various schemes, including illegal police stations and the targeting of lawmakers. China has strongly denied all such allegations.

In September, the Trudeau government announced an independent public inquiry into allegations of attempted foreign meddling by China, Russia and others.

As he leads India’s charge at the ongoing cricket World Cup, batting sensation Virat Kohli and wife Anushka Sharma are padding up for a business foray into motorsports and event management. The duo, who has been active in the investment circles through exposure in startups and ventures such as One8, Rage Coffee, Goa FC, Chisel Fitness and Neuva, is now entering the events and experiences space through their new venture ‘Nisarga’.

Chief Justices have been in the minority in 13 significant judgments, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has said, standing by his recent ruling in the marriage equality case. He was speaking yesterday at the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion on ‘Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States’, hosted by Georgetown University in Washington, DC

“I do believe it is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution. And I stand by what I said,” the Chief Justice said on the Supreme Court’s October 17 judgment in which it stopped short of legalising same-sex marriages.

All the judges on the five-member Constitution bench agreed that tweaking laws to bring about marriage equality would amount to encroaching into the legislature’s domain. There was, however, a difference of opinion on the question of the right to civil union and adoption rights. Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul were in favour of recognising same-sex unions. The majority of the bench took a different view, with Justice S Ravindra Bhat saying he disagreed with the court directing the State to provide for a new legal framework to formalise such relationships.

The Chief Justice also stood by the Supreme Court’s judgment of leaving the decision on marriage equality to Parliament.

“By the unanimous verdict of all the five judges on the bench, we came to the conclusion that while we have progressed a great deal in terms of decriminalising homosexuality and recognising people belonging to the queer community as equal participants in our society, legislating on the right to marry is something that falls within the domain of Parliament,” the Chief Justice said.

In his judgment in the closely-watched case, the Chief Justice had said choosing a life partner is an integral part of choosing one’s course of life. “Some may regard this as the most important decision of their life. This right goes to the root of the right to life and liberty under Article 21,” he said.

“The right to enter into union includes the right to choose one’s partner and the right to recognition of that union. A failure to recognise such associations will result in discrimination against queer couples,” the Chief Justice said, adding, “the right to enter into union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation”.

Supporting adoption rights for queer couples, he said there is nothing to probe that only heterosexual couples can provide stability to a child. “There is no material on record to prove that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child,” he said.