In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: disagree or agree. Classify the comment as disagree if it is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement, whether healthy or unhealthy. The disagreement can be due to toxic content (for example, disrespect, identity attack, insult, and threat), controversial content, misunderstandings, or conflicting opinions. Classify the comment as agree otherwise.

[Q]: Comment: We're not in denial. Telling a woman what not to wear is just as much as a micro-aggression as forcing a woman to wear something she doesn't want to. We hate the niqab and burqa too but realise that they will not disappear with a ban. The only thing Europe has succeeded in doing with their bans is to further ghettoise and isolate the Muslim communities, which makes it easier for radicalisation. Things change by having subsequent generations integrate more into mainstream and secular society, something that Canada does fairly well. It's slow (a matter of generations) but effective, particularly since we do not have nowhere near the same level of influx Europe has.
[A]: Disagree


[Q]: Comment: What utter hogwash. Look at the slaves taken by the ottomans or the religious  persecution of caucasian minorities all over europe by the catholic church.  The killing of mainly white people and the displaced persons (refugees) during and post ww2 is to this day the largest genocide and refugee situation in history.
None of which denies the suffering or persecution of the first nations or others. But many non white societies (including first nations) were slavers themselves.
It was the white uk that first abolished slavery, and persecuted those engaged in it. Western societies are trying to make amends today whereas many other oppressive countries/cultures are still engaging in ethnic cleansing (rohyinga) and discrimination.

Yet we cannot blame people alive today for the transgressions of the past. We can and should try to make things better for all not engage in silly accusations of race privilege.
If canada is such a bad place to live why do so many immigrants apply to live here?
[A]: Agree


[Q]: Comment: You forgot to mention many of the other tasks/events our Prime Minister has been involved with - travelling to participate with leaders at various international meetings, travelling to provinces across the country to speak with citizens, promoting Canadian efforts regarding NAFTA when speaking with US Governors...to name a few.  Press in the United States doesn't hurt us right now when we are in the midst of needing to increase our profile as the NAFTA negotiations begin.  The sad story is that there wasn't much interest in Harper internationally or frankly at home....he was boring and didn't accomplish nearly as much on behalf of regular Canadians as you would like to believe.
[A]:
Disagree