The Swedish prosecutor has translated select articles of the Swedish criminal code to English, for the purpose of giving non-Swedish speakers a better idea of what Julian Assange, of Wikileaks fame, is accused of. Specifically, to counter the claims that it is politically motivated, one may assume. The text is linked from this English-language web page, but I’ll reproduce it here exactly as they have it, for discussion.
A person who by assault or otherwise by violence or by threat of a criminal act forces another person to have sexual intercourse or to undertake or endure another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.
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.
If, in view of the circumstances associated with the crime, a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered less aggravated, a sentence to imprisonment for at most four years shall be imposed for rape.
If a crime provided for in the first or second paragraph is considered gross, a sentence to imprisonment for at least four and at most ten years shall be imposed for gross rape. In assessing whether the crime is gross, special consideration shall be given to whether the violence or threat was of a particularly serious nature or whether more than one person assaulted the victim or in any other way took part in the assault or whether the perpetrator having regard to the method used or otherwise exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality.
A person who, otherwise than as previously provided in this Chapter, sexually touches a child under fifteen years of age or induces the child to undertake or participate in an act with sexual implications, shall be sentenced for sexual molestation to a fine or imprisonment for at most two years.
This also applies to a person who exposes himself or herself to another person in a manner that is likely to cause discomfort, or who otherwise by word or deed molests a person in a way that is likely to violate that person’s sexual integrity.
A person who, by assault or otherwise by force or by threat of a criminal act, compels another to do, submit to or omit to do something, shall be sentenced for unlawful coercion to a fine or imprisonment for at most two years. Anyone who to such effect exercises coercion by threatening to prosecute or report another for a crime or give detrimental information about another, shall also be sentenced for unlawful coercion, provided that the coercion is wrongful.
If the crime referred to in the first, paragraph is gross, imprisonment for at least six months and at most six years shall be imposed. In assessing whether the crime is gross special consideration shall be given to whether the act included the infliction of pain to force a confession, or other torture.
Note that some sentences are in bold. They are of course not in bold in the original Swedish text. So why is one segment in each article (what they translated as “section”; the Swedish word is “paragraf”) in bold? We can only guess.
It does seem to me, that perhaps those three segments in bold are highlighted to draw the reader’s attention to the relevant part of each article. It could provide a hint of what the accusations are, in parts that have not been made public. Or then again, it could be a random formatting error. Do you have a better explanation?
The only reason I even bother about this is because of the conspiracy theories that the USA would be behind Assange’s arrest. Conspiracy theories hurt the cause of everyone who is trying to fight against corruption and for a better world. They are distractions. By the way, has it ever occurred to those who spread conspiracy theories that they may have been created by “security services” precisely to confuse and divert attention away from their real agenda, their actual activities?
As for the actual allegations, I say let’s assume he is innocent until proven guilty, and let’s assume the two accusers are acting in good faith until proven guilty of the opposite (something for which they have not been charged, and although it is not completely impossible that they will be, it is extremely unlikely since they apparently just told the police what happened, and it was the police and prosecutor who labeled it rape, not the women in question).