In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: toxic and non-toxic. Toxicity is defiend as anything that is rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable that would make someone want to leave a converation.

[Q]: Comment: Sounds like the PM is cleaning house.  The article does not say if Mr. Reporter left of his own accord.
[A]: Non-toxic


[Q]: Comment: You might go back to school to know the difference between "your" and "you're".  "Gun owners" should be singular as well.  Bad grammar is a dead give away for being uneducated.  Uneducated often but not always means close-mindedness.  Coulter is just plain stupid to support this racist jerk Trump.
[A]: Toxic


[Q]: Comment: One would assume that in a legitimately objective legal system the courts (and especially a Supreme Court) must permit input from all relevant stakeholders. By deselecting LGBTQ intervenors in a case where LGBTQ rights and interests are fundamental to the matter at hand, the SCC's original position failed the test of objectivity. Imagine if the SCC were to hear and rule on an appeal application about a pipeline in northern Canada after deselecting intervenors representing aboriginal interests. It just wouldn't happen. And it shouldn't happen, just as it shouldn't in a case where LGBTQ interests as well as the legitimate right of LGBTQ citizens/residents to be protected from discrimination are at stake. This is not about special interests. It's about the right of people from a historically oppressed community to be able to protect themselves from discrimination. To shut them out of the process would have transformed the SCC into little more than a kangaroo court.
[A]:
Non-toxic