In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: sexual-explicit and non-sexual-explicit. A comment is considered sexual-explicit if it explicitly portrays sexual matters.
One example is below.
Q: Comment: President lied under oath about consensual sex...
Not the same thing as rape.
A: Sexual-explicit
Rationale: This comment explicitly mentions "consensual sex" and "rape", and thus is sexual-explicit.
Q: Comment: Sigh. Human Rights Tribunals don't 'convict.'

If you don't like a decision of a Tribunal, you can apply for judicial review.

If you refuse to pay the money they order you pay the complainant, you might have your wages garnisheed or your office furniture sold.

If you refuse a direct non-monetary order of any civil court or tribunal - after exhausting all avenues of judicial review and appeal - yes you might be found guilty of contempt, and, who knows, it might lead to jail. It's called the rule of law and it applies to any of the thousands of different types of tribunals and civil courts in Canada.

If there is a trial for contempt, it will be in a court, and will use the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I happens rarely in Canada. The only one I know is a Terry Tremaine, who had been posting the most disgusting hate against "persons of the Jewish faith, blacks and other non-white minorities" and continued posting it.
A:
Non-sexual-explicit