Okay I think I'm in a better position to continue. Valthazar, you seem to have missed my point. I specifically and emphatically reject the idea that laws should attempt to prevent emotional distress - one does not have a right to not be offended. The Dutch example you cite, for instance? If that's how the law and decisions around it are worded, it's a terrible law. So is every other anti-blasphemy and anti-offense law, religious or otherwise.
You're still pretending that emotional distress is the only issue, however. In fact, you did this in response to an example wherein the police shielded perpetrators of assault, and further attacked a victim, as a direct result of prevailing public attitudes. This... is a little disingenuous. What I've been talking about all along is specifically speech that will clearly or is clearly intended to incite violence. I will admit, however, that I can't find an example offhand of what I'd consider a good law in that regard.
In principle, we're in not-dissimilar places - I absolutely agree that there are a lot of terrible speech-restricting laws out there, many of which have been used to enable tyranny and oppression. I see that as a reason, not to treat speech as sacrosanct (which, I'll note, you don't do in practice either), but to protect it strongly and use those examples to craft better law. I am also highly skeptical of any claim that any single nation's body of law on the matter, as a package, is the ideal. As an offhand example, current US law explicitly refuses to define obscenity, which opens the door for all sorts of potential abuse. Canadian law sets out an explicit definition. In general, I think that, rather than simply saying "My country's laws are ideal", we should define our goals and then see how well a given law conforms to those goals. For example, if your goal is to prevent governmental abuse of power, I would argue that sedition laws as a category are problematic - they treat offenses against members of government as inherently worse than those against common citizens, granting government officials special rights above and beyond those of the rest of the population.
My position on this has evolved - I was too emotionally involved earlier, and it did blind me. While I reject your argument that any restriction on speech that differs from those in current US code and common law is in principle bad, I will agree that your goals are laudable and that passing laws that fall within them is difficult. I suspect part of our difference of opinion stems from the fact that I'm used to living with a Supreme Curt that a) has the power to rule on provincial law, and b) is traditionally very protective of individual rights when they come into conflict with government. I'm not sure, at this point, that any examination of a law is possible outside the context of the justice system which enforces it - I have little problem in practice with a system that allows "reasonable limits" that can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" specifically because my courts interpret those phrases very narrowly - I'd be a lot less sanguine about that in the US, and downright terrified of it in, say, China. At this point, my only real issue is confusion as to why all the restrictions in US law, and only those restrictions, are deemed acceptable - what underlying goals or values support this conclusion?
As to the WBC and similar examples, I absolutely think they should be allowed to say pretty much everything they have - I see no imminent danger. They're just blowing hot air, and having such hateful groups in public may serve the valuable purpose of reminding people why their values are distasteful.