Please re-read the previous stab at this one:
Now, i'm not going to really expand much beyond the previous commenters (regards to you all), but i'll try (and, hence, fuck you yoda).
In legal terms, 'hate crime' and 'terrorism' mean whatever the government of the day finds it convenient for them to mean. Recall please, that in commonwealth countries, law constitutes whatever paper the corrupt government can con the queen's representative into signing into law; in republican governments, a president stands in for her majesty's lacky. The contemptible nature of its birth leaves the result no less fearsome - the emerging legal regime in canada is that anyone the state deems its enemy (say anyone that questions fraccing or tarsands or oil tankers in the treacherous inside passage or...) will be subject to warrantless surveillance, 'preventive detention' i.e. warrantless arrest and imprisonment, interference with communications, interference with banking accounts and transfers, (and whatever else the bastards addin...) The wording of the law, is just one more aspect of the monopoly of violence that the state reserves to itself.
In popular terms, the phrases are twisted even further to suit the needs-of-the-day of the government-of-the-day; parroted mindlessly by the mass corporate media, and borne up by the frothing punditry. They are cast out in photo-ops, press conferences, and other nonsense; and uncritically spewed forth into the work-addled minds of the general populace.
Occasionally, you will stumble across some jaded soul who writes honestly that terrorism 'is the use of violence, or threat of violence, to influence political action, or influence other social aspects'; though anyone who dares consign that to print will immediately note that all governments indulge in acts that must be declared 'terrorist' far beyond the puny efforts of any insurgent. (My first exposure to that was a review of the red brigades several decades ago, i don't recall the author of the piece now, but i bless her black little heart.)
When dealing with normal human beings*, i would suggest trying to edge them away from any knee-jerk reactionary terms (such as hate crime or...), and then finding sympathy with the tragedy (personification of the abstract), alternating with observations of how the state was indifferent/helpless/complicit in the tragedy and maybe how a real community could have resulted in a different outcome (abstraction of the personal).
At its heart, this is a propaganda offensive; whatever you have in your bag to counter that is worth considering here.