And re: Ecuador, there are certainly reasons why they have granted asylum.
Wanting to protect a victim of persecution is virtually guaranteed not to have been a real consideration. Pissing off the USA and the UK is the obviously much bigger motivation.
If they had solid evidence that he was dragging women off the streets and threatening them with a knife then this is all reasonable. No-one is alleging anything like that.
I'm also throwing in an uninformed opinion that people are throwing 'sexual assault' and 'rape' around expecting a strong reaction, but I don't see the justification for getting worked up here. Setting aside any STDs (basically, assuming Assange doesn't have aids), the issue is that he did something that didn't hurt anyone, doesn't appear calculated to humiliate, was in circumstances where he might have misunderstood as having consent (given he was already having sex with these women), and can be rectified in 24 hours with drugs and a doctors visit. This would be grounds to discipline him, but not grounds to get worked up.
I honestly can't conceive that you could apply this logic. Not all rape is the same in severity or impact - but it is sure as hell all rape. And feeling like someone had sexual contact with you in a way that you did not want is pretty much the end of the story. Whether there are explicit physiological medical repercussions or not.
For the sake of argument I'm happy to say that this is a rape, that it is bad and that it does deserve some sort of punishment.
Leaving aside any legal framework which isn't at all relevant to what I'm saying (and how many people on HN are up-to-date on Swedish law anyway). But that leaves the question of what punishment is appropriate (not necessarily mandated by law, but appropriate given a reasonable person. Opinions will differ).
I think that a sincere apology and a monetary fine seem like an appropriate level of punishment. I don't think international condemnation by strangers is called for.
1) No actual harm appears to have been done done
2) As I've said in other parts of the thread:
2a) The evidence that this was intended to humiliate or remove any sense of agency is not convincing
2b) There is evidence he complied with everything the women asked him to do, except in one instance where he should have worn a condom
I don't think these circumstances raise grave questions about Assange's moral character. If this is rape, which strictly speaking it may be, then I ask rhetorically why is it outrageous?
This seems pretty reasonable, and to me says that rape in Sweden is potentially about as serious as a traffic violation - there was potential, if other things had gone wrong in a somewhat unusual conjunction of events, for someone to have been harmed. An unsavvy woman (potentially those involved) would have been completely unaware that she had been raped.
I'd need to see something new, but while Assange may have committed a crime in Sweden he shouldn't be stigmatised. The word rape, in this very specifc case, is being used in a very technical manner and is clearly a slightly arcane legal term. Maybe discipline is required, but it isn't clear-cut what sort of penalty is needed. Again, I think an apology and some time with a doctor seems in order. Maybe a fine. Possibly this could be handled outside the courts. An extradition is uncalled for.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...
Wow, I never thought I'd see someone advocating that rape / coerced sex / exceeding consent repeatedly is totally fine because the person might be wanted internationally for other crimes.
Great use of logic there.
Whether or not it was a broken condom or he ripped it on purpose is a red herring. If the allegations are true, he was trying to have sex with a woman he just met while holding her arms down and trying to force her legs open. That's attempted rape.
> After a while Mr Assange had asked AA what she was doing and why she was squeezing her legs together. [...] Mr Assange let go of AA’s arms and put on a condom [...]
I can read this as being not that great at sex. Depending on how long "a while" is, he might just be in the habit of grabbing his partner. This doesn't seem malicious.
The last dot point is from the other set of charges (SW rather than AA). That one is a fairly clear case of straight up exceeding the scope of consent. If it happened like that, it is bad behavior. He could reasonably be unwise rather than malicious. A formal apology and a moderate fine for any medical expenses seems appropriate to my moral judgment, although the courts would know what is appropriate legally.
At any rate, the two cases here are rather minor compared to the suspicion that the US government is setting him up with a smear campaign. The forces against him include a government which apparently has a secret court and a spy network that was being run by the executive without the apparent knowledge of the American congress. These charges may not exist in a vacuum. Lots of people are not perfect, the issue is that he deserves some freedom from persecution for his political actions. Someone obviously agrees with me here that these charges were politically motivated, because the Ecuadorians are granting him asylum.