intent to piss off is not intent to harm.

That's debateable.

First off, harm isn't just physical, it can be verbal or non-physical. The only question is what level of non-physical abuse constitutes harm in a legal setting.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, there isn't really anything comparable in value for a non-religious person to how a religious person feels about their religious symbols. The closest example might be national symbols and war memorials, however those are protected by law - people have faced prison for peeing on war memorials, let alone destroying them. This is kind of taken for granted as the way things are, of course a nation is going to protect its own symbols. But just because we don't agree with a religious person's values towards a symbol doesn't somehow make it ok to use those values to abuse them.

Like I say, I don't think the symbols themselves should be protected, but it isn't right to antagonise others, and developing a law to establish that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

This law sounds bad though.