Oh sorry, "inciting anger". Huge difference, and crystal clear legally I'm sure...
I posted a link to the statute itself, and the word "anger" is not in it. It's "hatred". If you really think this is a clear-cut issue, don't misquote the law.
I understand that this may seem like nitpicking, but the way you're writing about the law suggests you interpret it in a way I believe it's not meant to be interpreted. You seem to believe that the law is written to protect people from feeling hatred themselves. It's not. It's meant to protect people from the hatred of others.
While this may seem like a insignificant distinction, it means that if muslims are the ones who are being protected here, the men are being accused of stirring up hatred
against muslims, not amongst them. Thus the "threatening behaviour" part. Behaving threateningly against muslims to stir up hatred against muslims.
This does not sound a whole lot like what these men were doing, which is why I don't believe they will be convicted.
Finally, this part of the law hasn't been quoted here yet, and since people opposed to it seem determined not to actually read it, I'll quote it here.
29J
Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
If I am the one who has misinterpreted the law, feel free to correct me.