I was surprised to read the above until I clicked on the video. It is not a legal explanation of hate speech at all; it is one man's biased view of why his speech should not be limited if it affects the freedoms of others. He clearly thinks there should be no laws limiting what he says, whatever the outcome.
So, hate speech is easily recognisable. It's intention is to harass or cause distress against the intended target and is targeted towards a person or group on the grounds of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, colour, ethnic origin or religion. It can be verbal, written speeches, general harassment or gestures. The use of hate speech can incite violence from one group towards another.
Where you say, Diasi, that it depends on a person's subjective view of what is abuse, this is true in other cases too. For instance, if I said I felt bullied you could not tell me I don't as it is my feelings and you cannot make a judgement as to what I feel. If, however, I said at work to the Personnel Department that I felt bullied, although they would know better than to tell me I didn't they would explain the process by which my complaint would be judged; bullying would have to be proved. You would probably need a log of events showing a pattern and it would help if you have actual evidence, emails, letters, etc., and/or witness/es. The same would apply to proving a case of hate speech - proof would be required and the person involved would have had to ask for it to stop - or show that they had not been able to.
Pat Condell does his research & then presents it in a manner which amuses people or annoys people, mainly the politically correct 'I feel offended'.
The main legal elements, around which his video centres, appear to be correct from what I've read, insomuch as:
A hate speech / incident doesn't require any evidence of an element of hate.
The person to which the hate speech / incident is directed doesn't have to perceive it as such.
A third party, such a professional 'I've been offended' warrior, who perceives that incident & probably every other incident they see as a hate crime, can report it based on their personal subjective view.
Police officers can take action based on their personal subjective views.
Evidence is not required, all that's needed is for anyone who thinks that it's a hate crime, based on their personal subjective view, to make a complaint.
Personally, any legislation that allows for an offence to be formed on the basis of someone's personal subjective views & possible prejudices, makes me uneasy.