A Dutch Prince of the Carnival was snubbed by the Catholic Church recently when a priest refused to grant him holy communion because he lives together with his boyfriend. The incident resulted has gotten much attention in the Netherlands and now multitudes of gay men and women look set to descend on one of the Netherlands’ largest Catholic churches next Sunday in protest. The big question is whether the church will then refuse offer the wafer and a sip of wine to any, or all, of its new visitors.

Gijs Vermeulen, the carnival prince who set off the current quarrel, said he felt “treated differently” when his priest refused to share Christ’s body with him. Vermeulen added that if the Catholic Church was true to its own standards, very few people would be able to take communion. The diocese of Den Bosch, the backdrop for the recent upheaval, has announced it will also be asking remarried divorcees and other people “living in sin” not to take communion from now on.

What do you think? Is the Catholic Church only being consistent in refusing Vermeulen his communion? Or is it just a case of thinly veiled discrimination?

This week’s news of the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al Mambouh in Dubai on January 20 most likely being the work of Israel’s secret service Mossad, has put the issue of murders by government agencies back in the limelight.
The practice of targeted killing has a long history in Israel. Most famously, the Mossad hunted down and killed many of those it held responsible for the murder of several Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympics.

Israel is probably not the only nation that doles out death on a personal level. Last year, the New Yorker magazine reported the United States uses surgical drone missile strikes to take out key Taliban leaders. In one such strike, 11 people died who happened to be unlucky enough to be close to a target.

Collateral damage is one of the main moral objections raised against state-sponsored assassinations. An oft cited argument in favour of the liquidations is that they are in the interest of justice.

Probably the most important question is whether the strikes are effective. If the killing of an alleged terrorist leader can prevent future attacks, hundreds of lives might be saved in the process. Of course, the opposite may also hold true: perhaps the killing of its leadership motivates a terrorist organisation to carry out more attacks in retribution.

What do you think? Are targeted killings by government agencies justified? Why? Are they effective?

Since 2007, all pregnant women in the Netherlands are offered an ultrasound in the 20th week of their pregnancy. This specific moment was chosen because the sonogram will then show the sex of the baby, but also because birth defects can be detected at a stage where abortion is still legal. If the foetus is diagnosed with Down syndrome, hydrocephalus, split spine of cleft lip, parents have until week 24 to determine whether they would rather not let their baby be born.

Data released this week, show the number of abortions between week 20 and 24 have doubled from 140 in 2006 to 276 in 2008. The new statistics triggered the orthodox Christian party ChristenUnie to call for postponing the ultrasound until after the point in the pregnancy where abortions are no longer legal. If that won’t get support in parliament, the party wants to ban abortions after 18 weeks.

This issue is just one of many currently debated by politicians, medical professionals, ethicists and patient advocacy organisations in the Netherlands and elsewhere regarding abortion. Where do we draw the line when it comes to birth defects? Should parents be allowed to decide against having a baby if doctors can see early on that is will be autistic? And if they should, why not abort a girl when they would rather have a boy?

What do you think? Is it up to the government to decide when and why people can have an abortion? Or should it always be the choice of the mother to decide whether or not she wants to continue a pregnancy and should she have all knowledge available to make that decision?

European nightlife is dead – at least so a lot of people think. NRC International will be examining the true state of affairs in a number of European cities, including Rotterdam, Paris and Belgrade, over the coming days in a series written by our correspondents.

The first instalment, published on Wednesday, deals with parallel grassroots movements in both Amsterdam and Paris. In these cities, revellers have cited the strict enforcement of sometimes petty rules as major buzzkill.

In Amsterdam, the ban on drinking alcoholic beverages standing up drew scorn and ridicule from many. (No, you are not supposed to drink it lying down, sitting in a chair puts you well within the limits of the law.) But the rules, of course, are intended to protect residents from revellers that may get a little bit too boisterous after one too many.

How do you feel about the measures taken in several European cities to make the nightlife safer, but at the same time more boring? Are laws a necessary evil, or do you support the grassroots movements fight the party-averse measures? Do you feel you can still paint the town red or have the restrictions affected you?