Indeed, it is not just about that, but that is the principle element of the law at issue. It is certainly also true that if you were to host a race-based violence promotion party in your home you might be subject to prosecution.
It is also clear under the law that if you hosted a "race X is inferior" party at your house you would not be in violation of the law.
But if you had the "race X is inferior" party and then assaulted a member of race X you'd face a longer sentence for that assault!
> that is the principle element of the law at issue
All elements of the law are equally enforceable, so singling out some as 'principal' is not a license to ignore others.
> It is also clear under the law that if you hosted a "race X is inferior" party at your house you would not be in violation of the law.
What are you basing this interpretation on? Couldn't that be construed as "stirring up hatred"? What about "race X is the primary perpetrator of such and such historical crimes, and is still guilty by way of their accumulated benefit"? Or "race X commits a disproportionate amount of violent crime"? Objectively, those could "stir up hatred" - as I'm sure many judges would agree.
It is also clear under the law that if you hosted a "race X is inferior" party at your house you would not be in violation of the law.
But if you had the "race X is inferior" party and then assaulted a member of race X you'd face a longer sentence for that assault!