Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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.
Example: Comment: Why do right wingers have so little respect for the rule of law when the law does not advance their personal interests? Is it a lack of empathy? Or a more general lack of basic human decency? I don't doubt that pBurns9 would be the first one to run to the courts if his rights were violated.
Output: Disagree
This comment expresses strong disagreement with right-wing politics, is disrespectful (accusing right-wingers "lack of basic human decency"), and comes with personal attack (to the user pBurns9). Thus, this comment is likely to raise a certain level of public disagreement from others.

New input case for you: Comment: I've attempted to try and understand why this commission is necessary. My main source of information is the CBC because, they seem to have gone all in with respect to the indigenous narrative this year.
So, apparently the reason some commissioners quit and why indigenous peoples are dismayed are because the commissioners should have been victims as well. I'm reducing a rather complex issue but it appears the main focus of this inquiry is to let the victims be heard. By themselves.
I think we're going in circles here. And time and money will be spent with no satisfactory result. Again.
Output:
Agree