There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Sweden is treating Assange any different from any other common criminal, charged with, or guilty of rape, under Swedish laws!
[Enacted to prevent the spread of aids/STD's, among a liberated and very sexually active population.}
If Assange ever believed he was innocent, why then has he gone to such extreme lengths, to simply avoid his day in a Swedish court; and, hardly the actions of a genuinely innocent "MAN"?
[Criminal paranoia perhaps?]
[A completely impartial Swedish court could conceivably dismiss the case for lack of genuinely credible evidence or sound witnesses?]
His claim that he could be extradited from Sweden, I believe, is patently mendacious; given, the US authorities would have had far fewer legalistic problems, extraditing him from England!
[And possibly the real reason he jumped bail leaving former friends with a bail bill of many hundreds of thousands!] Hardly the action of a genuinely innocent "MAN"?
For my money the US would be almost as pleased with a now expected outcome? Assange gaining a self imposed exile in a hardly lawful, rights abusing Ecuador, for the term of his natural life.
For all he knows, the US, with tentacles that reach into every dark corner of the globe; could have a CIA initiated sleeper cell, already in place down there?
Who would simply bide their time; until he felt completely safe, then entrap him by befriending him; then repeatedly publishing/leaking in his name, [already known to them,] some of Ecuador's dirtiest little secrets?
Promulgation, which could see him tortured/disappeared; and or, brought to sudden rough justice, by his very "liberators"?

I find it interesting that you see no legal basis for rape charges to be laid against Assange. While I am certainly no expert a quick Google search led me to a document that analyses Swedish rape law. Said document (found at http://erlinghellenas.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/the-swedish-rape-law/ ) says "This shall also apply if a person engages with another person in sexual intercourse or in a sexual act which under the first paragraph is comparable to sexual intercourse by improperly exploiting that the person, due to unconsciousness, sleep, intoxication or other drug influence, illness, physical injury or mental disturbance, or otherwise in view of the circumstances in general, is in a helpless state." Now if, as the statements by the women has stated, Assange had sexual intercourse with one of the women while she was asleep that was rape. No ifs, buts, or maybes.

The same would stand for the woman who stated that he continued with sexual intercourse after the condom broke and she told him to stop. Assange obviously exploited the situation (ie, he was already having intercourse with his victim and thus was in a position of physical power) to continue intercourse. Had he stopped and put on another condom then there would have been no problem.

I find it interesting that some people want an iron clad guarantee that Sweden won't extradite Assange to the USA (slightly premature given that no charges have been laid by the USA) yet don't bother to point out that there are a range of measures in place in Swedish law under which Assange would be able to object and fight against extradition. Again, a simple Google search makes it easy to read the relevant Swedish laws. I also find it disturbing that although the crimes Assange is accused of in Sweden would meet the definition of rape here (lack of and/or withdrawn consent is rape. Force is NOT required) some people don't believe he has a case to answer.

Any Australian overseas would expect help from our Foreign Affairs Department ; that this has not happened yet in Julian Assange's predicament is a disgrace. Obviously, judging by some contributor's comments they have already found him guilty of something!

I would suggest that before judging him, a look at the ABC's Four Corners program, Sex, Lies and Julian Assange, is very worth while.

The fact that Wikileaks won Amnesty International's 2009 award for " work exposing hundreds of extra-judicial assassinations in Kenya" should also be noted.

Even the accusers have not accused him of rape. What is alleged: one consensual sexual partner claims that on one occassion Assange began sex with her whilst she was alseep without a condom! Her objection is not to the act itself, which they had performed on other occassions but that on this one occassion he did not use a condom and that he fully knew that she would only consent if he was wearing a condom.

The veracity of the above can be easily found via google: police/prosecutor interrogation statements of Assange, the accusers and a number of witnesses which is all readily accessible if you care to inform yourself.

Assange has denied all allegations.

The other allegation is flimsier as it suggests Assange may have deliberately torn or damaged a condom he was using.

In these circumstances who would not be suspicious of the good faith of the Swedish prosection. And for those determined that he face justice, please advise what would be the appropriate punishment if he were found entirely guilty of the charges

It is funny how some of these memes go around and around. As Carz has already pointed out, the accusations made by the women in Sweden would, if proved, be rape under Swedish law. They would also be rape under UK law. Hence why the UK couts agreed on the extradition request.

Assange was offerred consular assistance by the Australian Government, but declined the offer. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-18/carr-denies-us-seeking-assange-extradition/4207426 Yet we keep hearing that no offer has been made. Even Assnge's lawyer has now got in on the act.

@YEBIGA, just because they didn't use the word rape doesn't mean that isn't what they are accusing him of. Many survivors of rape have huge issues using the word.

Carz: read the testimonies

The irony is delicious. A few decades ago, to call what Assange did rape, would have been the height of absurdity. Then we were assailed by the all-men-are-rapists crowd with a series of claims that massively expanded the legal definition of rape. Now gaining consent for intercourse in the evening doesn't allow a man to assume such consent the following morning (or minutes).

These laws were bought in throughout the western world in response to this new paradigm. But now that one of their own falls foul of them, they desperately seek to find an out. The same thing happened with Roman Polanski where it was 'agreed' that he didn't really commit rape-rape. Somehow, in the cases involving left icons, there are degrees of rape. But just let a right winger make the same point (eg Akin) and all hell breaks loose.

If Assange were a catholic priest or anyone other than a left wing hero, the only issue facing people such as the author would be whether to use the gallows or the chair.

The claims about a potential US extradition are a mere smoke-screen. Sweden has already said they wouldn't extradite him if he faced the death penalty and they have a track record in protecting people like Assange. If the US wanted him, they could get him from the UK.

Equally, the claim they could interview him in the UK is a diversion. This would be his second interview and in Sweden that has a particular significance. The Swedish prosecutor has already said that they don't want to interview him in the UK for legal reasons. If it was someone other than Assange, that would be enough for those of a certain political persuasion.

He's wanted on rape charges. Now. as absurd as it may be to call what he did 'rape', that is the law as it now sits. All the gumph about the US extradition, conspiracies etc, are merely devices to try to help a left wing icon avoid the consequences of laws bought in at the behest and demand of his current supporters.

On the face of it, this Mr Assange simply needs to appear before Swedish authorities to answer several charges involving sexual misconduct, as alleged by the two female complainents.

My knowledge of Swedish jurisprudence is limited, nevertheless I'm of the view they, the Swedish, have a pretty good, thus safe criminal justice system. Given that, what is it about this bloke that he believes he should receive any special treatment.

He should be taken from the Embassy (when he chooses to emerge) and conveyed directly to Sweden, in order to face his accusers.

I do tire of some of these individuals who feel they should receive special treatment, I really do.

No-one has accused Assange of rape, for heaven's sake will people get their heads around that simple fact?

The real issue here is that Britain is conspiring to expel an Australian citizen to Sweden from England merely to answer questions that he answered during the 5 weeks he was in Sweden after the prosecutor said there were no charges to answer.

Phrosty old son, I reckon you think that claims and facts and hang the truth and that sort of equates to facism.

Marilyn
Whatever your personal views, the actions that the police reports describe are termed rape in Swedish law (Penal Code, Chapter 6, Section 1). They are punishable by minimum custodial sentences of two years - hence for legal purposes are significant crimes. Again, whatever your views, his guilt or otherwise must be determined according to the laws of Sweden.
It is unclear who you are accusing of being in on a conspiracy - Britain is a country of some 50 million persons and more specificity is necessary. So far the only determining bodies involved have been the upper courts. The executive (government and police) are only involved in terms of executing court orders - matters in which they do not have discretion (as in court decisions regarding asylum seekers in Australia, as you are aware and support).
Mr. Assange's most focal problem is that he now has a quite definite criminal offence to his count in the UK - that of failure to surrender on a court order (that for his deportation). This is a separate matter to the relatively trivial one of breaking his bond, which will largely be dealt with by his guarantors losing their hard-earned (sarcasm). As he is must now face the criminal justice system in the UK he will not be getting out of the country by diplomatic means.
There is an old saying about what to not do when in a hole - the holy Julian should perhaps give this some regard.

Lets see:
Wikileaks releases documentary footage of criminal nigeligence/war crimes by US military personnel; Torture and human rights abuses in Guantanamo and elsewhere; Embarrassing dimplomatic documents of US collusion and manipulation of foreign governments.

Subsequently:
Banks illegally refuse to process electronic donations to Wikileaks.
Assange is alleged to not use a condom and an arrest warrant is issued.

Our Response
mmm - forget the torture, the crimes - he is not a journalist and lets hate him because he did not use a condom.

Then the UK threaten to storm an embassy too?

Those in the anti-Assange camp have accepted authority as truth; and rejected truth as their authority. They are unconscious, asleep and effectively culpable of the worst excesses in contemporary western culture. If the absence of a condom distracts you from the exposed torture and war crimes there is your guilt, your impramatur to these excesses - you enable them and give fuel to their continuance.

The game at play is to shut-up, discredit, disrupt, destroy Assange and Wikileaks as an example to anyone in future thinking of either Whistleblowing or publishing classified documents.

It is not about a condom.

YEBIGA,

Excellent, succinct post - spot on!

Samantha Stevenson's cogent summary rings true to me and the only thing
I still find amazing about the whole affair is the perversely stubborn denialism and willingness to slander of a small coagulation of radfems and right wingers.