In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

[EX Q]: Comment: If there were any doubts left about the state of Mr. Trump's mental health, this should clear that up.  His campaign team should be helping him seek treatment rather than seek the presidency.
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: I will agree with you on Christie. That guy should be thrown back into the ocean to rejoin his whale family.
[EX A]: Threat

[EX Q]: Comment: Is this sarcasm? If not then wow, I mean you are defending a symbol of female oppression that is only common in countries where Canada's liberal values are non-existent: gender equality, freedom of association (people are killed for apostasy and blasphemy), LGBT rights, and freedom of expression (people are lynched for religious satire and comedy). The niqab is synonymous with social regression and a lack of fundamental rights Canadians take for granted. It's not a coincidence that in every single country where the niqab is common that women are subjugated as second class citizens (often under the threat of violence). There is rich irony in defending the niqab while simultaneously raising concerns about homophobia and anti-semitism as wherever the niqab is common, the LGBT community face the death penalty for being outed and hostility towards Jews is a badge of honour. 
The niqab is synonymous with social regression, division, and community segregation, without exception.
[EX A]:
Non-threat