The real problem is people not knowing which fights to pick. If you defend a charlatan, you are not only perpetuating their fraud, you are damaging the very argument you wish to make. There are a great many other persons who are truly being persecuted by various government entities, but, unless some politacally or personal-gain motivated individual or group, say, like the Limbaughs and Sharptons of the world, rush to their "defense", no one ever really raise a hand to help them, unless it's something like the ACLU or other "liberal" group...
When I did my Google search, I just picked two out of the top five hits. I did skim over the others, but I felt those two were a good example of my point. They are not being persecuted because of their "outspoken opposition"; they plain and simple violated the law. As a "future barrister", you should understand the distinction. If you don't like the law change it or change those who make the law...
Additional problems arise from those who make broad, sweeping assertions without proper foundation, reasoning, or researched knowledge...
By the way, thank you for noting my wit. Jealous, much? I will see if there is a "witless protection" program avilable for you...
<O>