I'll comment on the proposed clarification subsection, which says that something is not criminal “solely because it...humiliates, hurts or offends.” This signals that those are not the only factors but that they may be relevant factors.
In a way, how the victim group feels is understandable, but strictly speaking, the test that the court has set is the subjectivity concern—that it's not the views of the speaker per se, or the views or feelings of the victim group: It's the reaction that is intended to be provoked in others towards the victim group.
I think there are other sections of those cases that would work as better clarification provisions and would not go to targeting the nature of the expression but would get to that objectivity. I know the Christian Legal Fellowship has suggested some language to reinforce objectivity. In our written brief, we've highlighted several passages in which the court identifies those pitfalls and gives guidance on how to stay objective and not interpret the offence too broadly.