I don't understand your point. I stated that this bill has very limited legal jurisdiction when it comes to indicting people for serious offenses and that other types of charges have to be made for this bill itself to have relevance.
Hate speech has a clear definition - abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation - in court that a judge would use to consider if something was or wasn't hate speech. In every day life, sure, a person can say that they got offended and that it was hate speech, but in a legal environment, things are quite different.
Also, I am a big fan of the fear-mongering: "this is a gradual process". Will you also tell me that soon we will have child marriages between pedos and children because those darn lefties wanted it?