Across at the Dish, Andrew quotes Mark Slouka as follows:
I don't believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about - constitutional law, for example, or sailing - a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don't believe in it.
I can see what Mark Slouka is saying but it isn't well put. Granted, it might be commended as a sign of proper modesty, or reserve, or prudence, not to sound off (as we bloggers sometimes do) on subjects you don't know anything about. And, certainly, no one is obliged to pay attention to an opinion based on ignorance. Still, Slouka does have a right to an opinion even where he knows nothing, and the same goes for everyone else. It's part of what is meant by freedom of belief and expression. Thus, many people who know nothing about cricket say that it's boring. Thus, knowing little about either archeology or stones, I just told you what I think about a story involving both. Thus, most pertinently, all those citizens of a democarcy eligible to vote, and others besides, have a right to their opinions about which party is most likely to govern well, however much or little they know about politics.