In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: identity-attack and non-identity-attack. Identity attack refers to anything rude or disrespectful about someone's identity, including appearance, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Example Input: Comment: We get it. All whites are racist.
Example Output: Identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: It matters because this could and should be investigated as a hate crime. If it was white on black that would be the headline. Civil rights apply to all colors and this victim was assaulted because he was white
Example Output: Identity-attack

Example Input: Comment: annexe@Flo
...then one fine day in 1919;
the French lawyer Rene Guyon publishes, and proclaims loud and clear;
"Private sphere!...Public sphere!...full freedom of sexual practices that belongs to the domain of privacy..."
...and Paf ! The World was in a State of Chock!

And then that one, to Canada in 1967, then Minister of Justice he rises, arrogant and said; "Private sphere!...Public sphere!...
there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation!..."
I think that Canadians have seized the difference between these two concepts "Private sphere" and "Public sphere"...
and yet could apply this same principle to religious denominations (who arrive ?) in Canada?
"Private Sphere", right to practice (after our CND & Qc Charters)
"Public Sphere", secular neutrality (after our laws & civil code)

Why not set your religious internal problems between you?
There is no 'Great' Council home?
"We" do not have to feel guilty anymore...
Example Output:
Non-identity-attack