TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.
PROBLEM: Comment: The problem is really the accreditation of foreign trained physicians and specialists. This has nothing to do with the current Govt and has existed for years.

It's actually quite ridiculous that a foreign specialist educated and trained eg: At the University of Edinburgh (unquestionably a top rated school), who did a foreign residency cannot practice in Canada unless they complete a Canadian residency. But the number of residency positions is capped and many are taken by Canadians who studied abroad and returned to complete their residency in Canada. Worse - when they complete their residency, they are free to leave, no strings attached.

SOLUTION: Non-obscene

PROBLEM: Comment: The authors of the JJ report insist that homosexuality played no role in the abuse crisis, but their own data undermine this conclusion. For example, they plainly admit that "81% of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male," and that 78% were post-pubescent.

So if the abusers weren't pedophiles, and the victims were mostly adolescent males, wouldn't that make the victimizers homosexuals?

What else could we possibly be talking about if not homosexuality?

Why can't you answer this question?

SOLUTION: Non-obscene

PROBLEM: Comment: Trump's height towers over the King and he stooped to have an award put over his head.

Silly Washington Post story. Laughable.

SOLUTION:
Non-obscene