Instructions: 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.
Input: Comment: It seems to me that the judge determined that the two people did not break the Elections Act. Before that, criminal charges were stayed presumably because there was no evidence to succeed in prosecuting those either!

If this trial shows anything, it shows the hypocritical actions of the PCs and NDP to push for prosecution for something that they would cheerfully do themselves, as a political ploy - Brown even going so far as to state that Wynne was being prosecuted!

Assuming that Radwanski really wants the legislation to change, the answer is push for the parties to get together and jointly float a Bill to do so. However, politicians of all stripes love their dirty tricks and will posture about the issue much as Radwanski does in this piece but will never do anything to stop it. And in this case, there didn't even seem to be enough evidence to justify the money wasted by the police and the Court system - for that we have to blame Brown and Horwath.
Output:
Non-sexual-explicit