In the idyllic town of Vaxholm, I've been able to catch up with one of Julian Assange's key legal advisers.
JENNIFER ROBINSON, LAWYER: Sweden is a beautiful country, an interesting place to be.
For two years, 31-year-old Jennifer Robinson has been working pro bono for her client. But with Sweden determined to extradite Assange, it is the last place you would expect to find her.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think it is a great shame that this case has caused such controversy globally, and it has been handled the way it has been handled because I think it has done Sweden a lot of damage.
MAN AT FESTIVAL: What is the difference in your mind between human rights and the work of advocacy of human rights and activism?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well advocacy is a form of activism, I guess.
This is what has drawn Robinson here - a festival of ideas, bringing together free speech activists, artists and computer geeks, the sort of gathering that would probably appeal to Assange himself, were he not holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, unable to leave.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: And that's what is so important I think about what WikiLeaks does because you need the relevant information in order to be able to act.
Robinson is keen to preach the WikiLeaks gospel, but the issue of rape claims against Assange won't go away.
MAN: My criticism of where Assange's message has been going recently from a UK prospective is that whilst awareness is high, I would suggest that popular support is going the wrong direction and because his communication about transparency is getting caught up in a completely different communication about a rape accusation and he's using the rape acquisition to try to communicate his transparency message. That is a mistake, I think. That is why I think popular opinion is shifting against him.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: And the media is not always the best source, the mass media.
Assange's legal team knows that public opinion is vital for his case. So they're at pains to point out he is not running away from the rape allegations.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: He remains willing to cooperate with the Swedish case. The reason he sought asylum when he did was because the Swedish prosecutor had announced a press release that she would be placing him into custody and he would not have the bail conditions that he had complied with in the United Kingdom here in Sweden. That meant that he physically didn't have the opportunity once in Sweden to seek asylum with respect to the plans for the United States plans to prosecute and extradite him.
MAN: He was afraid that the American authorities are going to chase you down and go after you?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Oh well, they have been trying to do it for a while.
Since he emerged as the world's number one whistleblower, controversy has been Julian Assange's constant companion. From a life on the move, to virtual prisoner in London, he's always stayed one step ahead of his pursuers.
LAWYER: They routinely charge the whistleblowers and that is what is happening to Julian Assange.
His bolt for the Ecuadorian embassy caught everyone by surprise, including his lawyer.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I found out that he was in the embassy when I got a phone call from a journalist in Spain, because it came out on the Spanish wires before it was available in English.
Tensions ran high when Britain indicated it may take the extraordinary step of withdrawing the diplomatic status of the building in order to seize Assange.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Withdrawing Ecuador's diplomatic status in these circumstances, and, indeed, in almost any circumstances, sets a dangerous precedent around the world for diplomatic missions elsewhere both for British diplomats and all diplomats. You now have a huge amount of police resources outside the embassy, in a case where a man has not been charged yet. I think a lot of people ask a lot of questions about why.
Assange emerged to thank his supporters and the President of Ecuador, creating yet more controversy.
JULIAN ASSANGE: I thank President Correa for the courage he has shown in considering and granting me political asylum.
REPORTER: A lot of people find it hypocritical that Ecuador has granted Julian Assange asylum while it has a record of harassing journalists in its own country. What do you make of that?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I actually think the more interesting question that people have not been asking is what it says about the democracies and the free speech protections in the West, that a journalist and a publisher has sought asylum in Ecuador because he didn't feel his rights were adequately protected. That is the more interesting question.
REPORTER: It is still valid. Ecuador is - not exactly a protector of free speech in its own country, but is giving Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, protection.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The same thing can be said of many states. Australia locks up its refugees while purporting to have an excellent human rights reputation.
JULIAN ASSANGE: The world was watching because you were watching.
So why Ecuador? Assange's lawyers explicitly link his asylum to their views that Canberra has failed to act on his behalf.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: And the Australian Government has, despite repeated requests, both in writing and person, when I've met with Australian government officials, to seek the assurances that Ecuador later sought before granting asylum status and the Australian Government has so far not done, or acceded to any of those requests so Australia was, for Julian, not an option.
For its part, Canberra maintains that Assange has not been abandoned.
BOB CARR, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: There has been no Australian who has received more consular support in a comparable period than Mr Assange.
As both sides continue to snipe at each other, what are Assange's lawyers actually asking for?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The Australian government has been requested to make representation to the United States about their ongoing criminal investigation and to seek an insurance they would not prosecute for what is essentially journalistic activity. The Australian Government conceded in a meeting with me through the Attorney-General that it is possible to seek that assurance. They can seek that insurance but they are specifically deciding not to.
So now the request is put directly to the White House.
JULIAN ASSANGE: I ask President Barack Obama to do the right thing. The United States must renounce its witch-hunt against WikiLeaks. The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.
Assange's plea comes as Australia seeks to play down suggestions that Sweden would ever extradite Assange to the US.
BOB CARR: Sweden, a Liberal democracy, is not part of some fully blown CIA conspiracy. I repeat - the Americans could extradite Mr Assange more easily from the United Kingdom than they can from Sweden.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I certainly have never suggested that there is any such fully-blown CIA conspiracy. The Bob Carr in particular, and the Australian Government, more generally, has been wilfully blind, in my view, to what has been happening in the US and what is an ongoing criminal investigation. We're talking about 45,000 pages of FBI investigations. We are talking about an active ongoing criminal investigation by the department of justice into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and all of the indications suggest that they are planning to prosecute him and may have an indictment already prepared.
BOB CARR: The Americans have said nothing to indicate an indictment is planned.
The US may have said nothing, but as the controversy continues, Australia's embassy in Washington has been busy asking questions. This article reveals cables obtained under freedom of information where ambassador Kim Beazley seeks high level advice on the direction and likely outcome on the investigation, and reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: There is a criminal investigation of unprecedented size and scale that the Australian Government is saying publicly we have no information about plans to prosecute him, and we don't think that the US is interested, runs completely counter to the briefings that they are getting from the diplomats.
How likely is it that Assange would ever be extradited from Sweden to the US? That question was taken up by this panel at the Festival of Ideas.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The particular circumstances in which he finds himself is that it is unlikely the US would seek his extradition from the UK while there is a valid warrant from another country. So the factual situation which he finds himself means that if he is going to be extradited to the US it is going to happen from here after the matters are resolved here.
And then the question, is it possible to be extradited from Sweden to the US, and absolutely, it is possible.
PAL WRANGE, ASSOC PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY: But it all depends on a number of things - He could not be extradited and cited to capital punishment. That is very clear and I think the US would not even consider that, so the death penalty is out of question. Secondly, it what has to be a crime punishable both under US law and Swedish/UK law. But then there's a second hurdle, namely it cannot be for a political crime. Espionage and some other related crimes are considered to be political crimes, that it cannot be military crime.
MAN: It seems pretty straight forward that he is not going to be extradited from Sweden. Pal has just clarified for two extremely robust reasons he cannot be extradited, not even including the death penalty.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I'm actually not sure that that is what he said. In fact, it depends entirely on the way the in which the US pleads their extradition request. What I understand you to have said is that it is entirely possible even for a very serious offence that might attract the death penalty, provided it is not political, you could be extradited from Sweden to the US.
PAL WRANGE: And if the US would frame it as an ordinary crime - computer crime or something like that has been mentioned. It could still be considered a criminal crime if there is a strong political element to the crime.
THOMAS BJELKEMAN-PETTERSSON, SWEDISH SOFTWARE EXPERT: But how could anyone consider any of this not to be highly political at this point? I mean, it is all about politics.
MAN: That is a public perception. That is it political.
THOMAS BJELKEMAN-PETTERSSON: Absolutely.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I don't think anyone will come out of this well. I think that is very unfortunate - it didn't need to go there. Unfortunately, for Julian, this case has been incredibly damaging to his reputation and it hasn't been handled - I don't believe it has been handled by the Swedish authorities in a way it could have been, which could have been resolved a long time ago. This is really detracting from what we - as you said, what WikiLeaks has done.
Sleepy Vaxholm seems a world away from the international controversy that is embroiling London, Washington and Canberra. But even here, Jennifer Robinson is determined to fight for a principle and a friend.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Irrespective of what your views are of Julian as a person, however uninformed, irrespective of what you think about WikiLeaks, whether you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing, he is Australian. He's an Australian citizen and imagine if he were your brother, or your son, or your friend? How would you feel about one of your friends being treated that way by the Australian Government? I think all Australians ought to think about it that way.
MARK DAVIS: Australian lawyer Jennifer Robinson. You can see that story again as well as the collection of various stories we have done on Julian Assange over the past couple of years on our website.
Reporter/Camera
YAARA BOU MELHEM
Producer
GEOFF PARISH
Fixers/Second Camera
EVE LUCAS
SCOTT LAKEY
Editors
SUE BELL
ANTOINETTE FORD
Original Music Composed by VICKI HANSEN
JENNIFER ROBINSON, LAWYER: Sweden is a beautiful country, an interesting place to be.
For two years, 31-year-old Jennifer Robinson has been working pro bono for her client. But with Sweden determined to extradite Assange, it is the last place you would expect to find her.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think it is a great shame that this case has caused such controversy globally, and it has been handled the way it has been handled because I think it has done Sweden a lot of damage.
MAN AT FESTIVAL: What is the difference in your mind between human rights and the work of advocacy of human rights and activism?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well advocacy is a form of activism, I guess.
This is what has drawn Robinson here - a festival of ideas, bringing together free speech activists, artists and computer geeks, the sort of gathering that would probably appeal to Assange himself, were he not holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, unable to leave.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: And that's what is so important I think about what WikiLeaks does because you need the relevant information in order to be able to act.
Robinson is keen to preach the WikiLeaks gospel, but the issue of rape claims against Assange won't go away.
MAN: My criticism of where Assange's message has been going recently from a UK prospective is that whilst awareness is high, I would suggest that popular support is going the wrong direction and because his communication about transparency is getting caught up in a completely different communication about a rape accusation and he's using the rape acquisition to try to communicate his transparency message. That is a mistake, I think. That is why I think popular opinion is shifting against him.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: And the media is not always the best source, the mass media.
Assange's legal team knows that public opinion is vital for his case. So they're at pains to point out he is not running away from the rape allegations.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: He remains willing to cooperate with the Swedish case. The reason he sought asylum when he did was because the Swedish prosecutor had announced a press release that she would be placing him into custody and he would not have the bail conditions that he had complied with in the United Kingdom here in Sweden. That meant that he physically didn't have the opportunity once in Sweden to seek asylum with respect to the plans for the United States plans to prosecute and extradite him.
MAN: He was afraid that the American authorities are going to chase you down and go after you?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Oh well, they have been trying to do it for a while.
Since he emerged as the world's number one whistleblower, controversy has been Julian Assange's constant companion. From a life on the move, to virtual prisoner in London, he's always stayed one step ahead of his pursuers.
LAWYER: They routinely charge the whistleblowers and that is what is happening to Julian Assange.
His bolt for the Ecuadorian embassy caught everyone by surprise, including his lawyer.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I found out that he was in the embassy when I got a phone call from a journalist in Spain, because it came out on the Spanish wires before it was available in English.
Tensions ran high when Britain indicated it may take the extraordinary step of withdrawing the diplomatic status of the building in order to seize Assange.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Withdrawing Ecuador's diplomatic status in these circumstances, and, indeed, in almost any circumstances, sets a dangerous precedent around the world for diplomatic missions elsewhere both for British diplomats and all diplomats. You now have a huge amount of police resources outside the embassy, in a case where a man has not been charged yet. I think a lot of people ask a lot of questions about why.
Assange emerged to thank his supporters and the President of Ecuador, creating yet more controversy.
JULIAN ASSANGE: I thank President Correa for the courage he has shown in considering and granting me political asylum.
REPORTER: A lot of people find it hypocritical that Ecuador has granted Julian Assange asylum while it has a record of harassing journalists in its own country. What do you make of that?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I actually think the more interesting question that people have not been asking is what it says about the democracies and the free speech protections in the West, that a journalist and a publisher has sought asylum in Ecuador because he didn't feel his rights were adequately protected. That is the more interesting question.
REPORTER: It is still valid. Ecuador is - not exactly a protector of free speech in its own country, but is giving Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, protection.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The same thing can be said of many states. Australia locks up its refugees while purporting to have an excellent human rights reputation.
JULIAN ASSANGE: The world was watching because you were watching.
So why Ecuador? Assange's lawyers explicitly link his asylum to their views that Canberra has failed to act on his behalf.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: And the Australian Government has, despite repeated requests, both in writing and person, when I've met with Australian government officials, to seek the assurances that Ecuador later sought before granting asylum status and the Australian Government has so far not done, or acceded to any of those requests so Australia was, for Julian, not an option.
For its part, Canberra maintains that Assange has not been abandoned.
BOB CARR, MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS: There has been no Australian who has received more consular support in a comparable period than Mr Assange.
As both sides continue to snipe at each other, what are Assange's lawyers actually asking for?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The Australian government has been requested to make representation to the United States about their ongoing criminal investigation and to seek an insurance they would not prosecute for what is essentially journalistic activity. The Australian Government conceded in a meeting with me through the Attorney-General that it is possible to seek that assurance. They can seek that insurance but they are specifically deciding not to.
So now the request is put directly to the White House.
JULIAN ASSANGE: I ask President Barack Obama to do the right thing. The United States must renounce its witch-hunt against WikiLeaks. The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful.
Assange's plea comes as Australia seeks to play down suggestions that Sweden would ever extradite Assange to the US.
BOB CARR: Sweden, a Liberal democracy, is not part of some fully blown CIA conspiracy. I repeat - the Americans could extradite Mr Assange more easily from the United Kingdom than they can from Sweden.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I certainly have never suggested that there is any such fully-blown CIA conspiracy. The Bob Carr in particular, and the Australian Government, more generally, has been wilfully blind, in my view, to what has been happening in the US and what is an ongoing criminal investigation. We're talking about 45,000 pages of FBI investigations. We are talking about an active ongoing criminal investigation by the department of justice into Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and all of the indications suggest that they are planning to prosecute him and may have an indictment already prepared.
BOB CARR: The Americans have said nothing to indicate an indictment is planned.
The US may have said nothing, but as the controversy continues, Australia's embassy in Washington has been busy asking questions. This article reveals cables obtained under freedom of information where ambassador Kim Beazley seeks high level advice on the direction and likely outcome on the investigation, and reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: There is a criminal investigation of unprecedented size and scale that the Australian Government is saying publicly we have no information about plans to prosecute him, and we don't think that the US is interested, runs completely counter to the briefings that they are getting from the diplomats.
How likely is it that Assange would ever be extradited from Sweden to the US? That question was taken up by this panel at the Festival of Ideas.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The particular circumstances in which he finds himself is that it is unlikely the US would seek his extradition from the UK while there is a valid warrant from another country. So the factual situation which he finds himself means that if he is going to be extradited to the US it is going to happen from here after the matters are resolved here.
And then the question, is it possible to be extradited from Sweden to the US, and absolutely, it is possible.
PAL WRANGE, ASSOC PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY: But it all depends on a number of things - He could not be extradited and cited to capital punishment. That is very clear and I think the US would not even consider that, so the death penalty is out of question. Secondly, it what has to be a crime punishable both under US law and Swedish/UK law. But then there's a second hurdle, namely it cannot be for a political crime. Espionage and some other related crimes are considered to be political crimes, that it cannot be military crime.
MAN: It seems pretty straight forward that he is not going to be extradited from Sweden. Pal has just clarified for two extremely robust reasons he cannot be extradited, not even including the death penalty.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I'm actually not sure that that is what he said. In fact, it depends entirely on the way the in which the US pleads their extradition request. What I understand you to have said is that it is entirely possible even for a very serious offence that might attract the death penalty, provided it is not political, you could be extradited from Sweden to the US.
PAL WRANGE: And if the US would frame it as an ordinary crime - computer crime or something like that has been mentioned. It could still be considered a criminal crime if there is a strong political element to the crime.
THOMAS BJELKEMAN-PETTERSSON, SWEDISH SOFTWARE EXPERT: But how could anyone consider any of this not to be highly political at this point? I mean, it is all about politics.
MAN: That is a public perception. That is it political.
THOMAS BJELKEMAN-PETTERSSON: Absolutely.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: I don't think anyone will come out of this well. I think that is very unfortunate - it didn't need to go there. Unfortunately, for Julian, this case has been incredibly damaging to his reputation and it hasn't been handled - I don't believe it has been handled by the Swedish authorities in a way it could have been, which could have been resolved a long time ago. This is really detracting from what we - as you said, what WikiLeaks has done.
Sleepy Vaxholm seems a world away from the international controversy that is embroiling London, Washington and Canberra. But even here, Jennifer Robinson is determined to fight for a principle and a friend.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Irrespective of what your views are of Julian as a person, however uninformed, irrespective of what you think about WikiLeaks, whether you think it’s a good thing or a bad thing, he is Australian. He's an Australian citizen and imagine if he were your brother, or your son, or your friend? How would you feel about one of your friends being treated that way by the Australian Government? I think all Australians ought to think about it that way.
MARK DAVIS: Australian lawyer Jennifer Robinson. You can see that story again as well as the collection of various stories we have done on Julian Assange over the past couple of years on our website.
Reporter/Camera
YAARA BOU MELHEM
Producer
GEOFF PARISH
Fixers/Second Camera
EVE LUCAS
SCOTT LAKEY
Editors
SUE BELL
ANTOINETTE FORD
Original Music Composed by VICKI HANSEN