INCAL JUDGMENT OF 9 JUNE 1998 17 certain activities within associations, trade unions or political organisations, in the latter case in the capacity of leader, founder member, parliamentary candidate, mayor or town councillor. (ii) The Government 44. The Government asserted that, despite the anger expressed in the leaflet concerned, the operations aimed at closing down booths unlawfully erected on land belonging to others and driving out street traders met the requirements of the relevant legislation and regulations, which had no other purpose than the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others. However, in the racial perspective of the leaflet prepared by the applicant, who was then a member of the HEP, a party working in favour of Kurdish separatism, the measures thus taken were presented as the destruction of Kurdish citizens’ houses with a view to depriving them of all means of subsistence. Through its aggressive and provocative language the leaflet in question had been likely to incite citizens of “Kurdish” origin to believe that they suffered from discrimination and that, as victims of a “special war”, they were justified in acting in self-defence against the authorities by setting up “neighbourhood committees”. In addition, the population of İzmir in general, and its shopkeepers in particular might have been tempted to think that those who were truly responsible for their social and economic troubles were their “Kurdish” fellow-citizens and that the street traders – all “Kurdish” according to the leaflet – might endanger their well-being. Such a message was not consistent with the calls to “brotherhood”, which were designed only to enable the leaflet’s authors to evade their criminal responsibility. With reference to the analysis of the situation in Turkey made by the Court in the Zana v. Turkey judgment of 25 November 1997 (Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII), the Government observed that in the present case the National Security Court had noted a dangerous tendency in İzmir, which had the potential to create an explosive situation, as in southeastern Turkey, where there had been an intolerable increase in terrorism in the years 1992 and 1993. In such a case the wide limits of criticism acceptable in political debate and the high level of protection enshrined by the Court’s case-law on the question were completely without relevance. In that context, Mr Incal, who was a lawyer by profession, had overstepped the normal limits of political controversy by disregarding his “duties” and “responsibilities”. He had tried to incite an ethnic group to rise against the officials and authorities of the State at a time when the PKK, a terrorist separatist organisation, had intensified its atrocities prompted by racial hatred. In such a social climate, which made it extremely easy to stir up internal dissent, or even civil strife, the Turkish authorities had had no