Some are now asking whether journalists have gone too far in pursuit of the story. Dutch daily De Telegraaf sparked controversy in the Netherlands last Friday, when it published a phone interview with the child who – apparently – wasn’t even aware of the full extent of his own personal tragedy.

Politicians of all stripes were quick to condemn what they saw as pointless prying and exploitation of Ruben’s plight. De Telegraaf has since issued a half-hearted apology, stating it regretted it readers had “been made to feel as if De Telegraaf had acted incorrectly” and that it would practice more restraint in its future dealings with relatives of the crash victims.

The incident has stirred a recurring debate that pits the public’s right to know against the individual’s right to privacy. Few would argue that the story of the Ruben’s survival in itself should not be reported, but how much of it should be? Do media audiences worldwide need to know his (last) name, his hometown or his age? Should pictures of him be broadcast? Can he be interviewed? And what type of harm lies in disclosing these facts exactly?

The array of responses is born out of the Netherlands’ schizophrenic drug policy, which has decriminalised, but not legalised, the sale of cannabis on a small scale. Though clearly defined, the line between illegal and de facto legal trade runs straight through the supply chain of coffee shops. In March, the owner of the Netherlands largest coffee shop, located on the Belgium border, was convicted of running a criminal organisation. The judge stopped just short of calling the local government that facilitated its operations complicit in his crimes.

The coffee shops on the border are dealing with foreigners, particularly from France, Belgium and Germany, who are coming to the Netherlands to purchase drugs. In 2006, in a measure to limit the nuisance caused by these tourists, the city of Maastricht tried to ban foreign nationals from its coffee shops. The European Court of Justice currently has a test case under consideration that concerns the removal of two foreigners from a Maastricht coffee shop.

The Netherlands has long been under international pressure to enforce a stricter drug policy. In this case, however, a European Commission representative has made an argument against the ban of foreigners. As the owner of the Maastricht coffee shop, who feels that trade in cannabis should be free within the EU because it is a commodity like any other, the representative feels the free flow of capital is at stake.

What do you think? Is Maastricht correct in trying to limit the nuisance caused by drug tourism this way? Or is its policy unfair, perhaps even a form of discrimination? Have other towns done better at combating the problem? What can be done about drug tourism?

Through its ruling, the high court has let the constitutional prohibition of discrimination prevail over the freedoms of religion, association and speech that are also guaranteed by the constitution. Citizens who want to exercise their religion or beliefs in a democratic state should always do so within the limitations of the law, the court stated.

In an editorial, NRC Handelsblad asks whether it is really up to the government to set the party straight. The women in the SGP’s rank and file seem unlikely to even want to run for office, and if they were to change their minds, there are many other parties they could join.

What do you think? Should all forms of discrimination be eliminated within political parties to uphold democracy? Or is the core of democracy that people can form parties based on their beliefs and ideas even if those exclude other groups in society?

An article published on NRC International last week sums up the ongoing debate in several European countries over a piece of cloth only a few fingers wide: the facial veil that is part of the burqa.

Only a few thousand women in Europe actually wear this head to toe veil. But a poll by the Financial Times showed a majority of Europeans support banning it.

France has tried to ban the traditional Islamic garment from its streets, but found the plan thwarted by legal impediments. The French Council of State said it would be legally untenable for any reason other than security.

In Belgium, a ban is already in effect in some municipalities, causing no apparent legal problems. It could soon become the first country in Europe to outlaw the burqa completely. A statement by local politicians called the prohibition “essential for living together in an emancipated society that ensures the rights of all”.

In other countries, such as the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands, a ban remains out of the question for the time being. “In the UK, we are comfortable with expressions of belief,”  prime minister Gordon Brown said in a statement.

In an opinion published in Der Spiegel and on NRC International, Yassin Musharbash argued that facial veils are only a symptom of an underlying problem and that efforts to outlaw it are misguided. “At issue is not the veil that covers the head, but the one that is inside the head, ” according to Musharbash.

What do you think? Is the burqa, as some claim, a symbol of the submission of women and should it therefore be banned? Or is it a harmless form of religious expression?

Most of the recently revealed abuse scandals took place decades ago. In many Western countries, including the Netherlands, they have exceeded the statute of limitations for such crimes.

To prevent this from happening in the future, the Dutch minister of justice has argued the statute should be suspended for sexual abuse, meaning perpetrators could be prosecuted indefinitely. As is already the case for crimes that carry a possible life sentence, such as murder. However, since the constitution does not allow for retroactive changing of the law, this proposed legislative shift would only apply to future cases.

The question remains how to deal with the clerics now accused of abuse. A prominent Labour politician, and Catholic, has suggested the institution of a “truth commission” charged with looking into scandals in the Netherlands. The Catholic Church has already set up a committee to hold a “completely independent” investigation.

What do you think is the best way forward? Should the public prosecution still find a way to go after the priests or should other measures be taken inside or outside the Church? Will suspending the statute of limitation for future crimes of the same nature make a difference?

In the run-up to the meeting, a number of radical solutions have been openly discussed. On Thursday, German chancellor Angela Merkel suggested booting countries that broke the rules from the euro “as a measure of last resort”. Daniel Gros of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels and Thomas Mayer of Deutsche Bank, had already suggested the institution of a European Monetary Fund that could provide liquidity deprived European countries with an influx of cash. This suggestion met with vehement resistance in Dutch parliament however in a debate last week. Dutch members of parliament asked acting finance minister Jan Kees de Jager to push for a solution involving the International Monetary Fund instead.

What do you think the European Union should do? Would not helping the Greeks only demonstrate the weak political foundations underlying the euro, weakening the currency further? Or would providing them with aid send the wrong message to other European countries that are in a financial pinch?

Since 2004, anybody who wants to bring his or her partner to live in the Netherlands needs to earn at least 120 percent of the minimum wage.  This condition effectively makes it impossible for people on welfare to marry a foreigner and live together in the Netherlands, but also excludes students and those working part-time.

The income requirement is but one of many introduced in recent years by the Dutch government that has been looking to limit immigration in general. Foreigners looking to marry a Dutch resident are now required to complete a language and citizenship test in their country of origin for instance. In addition, both partners now need to be at least 21 years of age.

What do you think? Is it reasonable to place demands on people looking to bring their spouses to other countries? Or is the right to marry whoever one pleases an inalienable one? If you have personal experience with this, please share it.

Although local results cannot be translated to the national level for a number of reasons a few predictions can be made based on them. The upcoming election campaign is likely to focus on the battle between CDA prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende and Labour leader Wouter Bos, with anti-Islamic Wilders as the strong third competitor.

Whoever wins the popular vote, the big challenge after the June 9 election will be the formation of a coalition government. The Christian Democratic/Labour government that fell last month won’t return. Bos has ruled out a coalition with Wilders. Balkenende is keeping his options open, but doesn’t look to keen to partner with the populist leader either.

Three scenarios were mentioned in an NRC Handelsblad analysis: a three party coalition composed of CDA, PVV and right-wing liberals VVD, a revival of the ‘Purple’ (Labour, VVD and left-wing liberal D66) coalition that was in power from 1994 to 2002 augmented by GroenLinks, or a minority coalition, as is common in Denmark.

What do you think? Are any of these scenarios likely? What could be an alternative?

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?

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?