"You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange!"
I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?
That's the entire issue with this. If Assange was getting his due process, the interview would have taken place via video conference as has been enshrined in Swedish judicial practice via this (https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337) ruling from the Swedish supreme court. The man probably knows more about his situation than you do and if he thinks going to Sweden is a bad idea for him then, unless you can come up with a really good reason why not, his opinion on the matter carries a lot more weight than yours.
I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?