Comments on: Stylin’ at IKEA

By: The truth

The truth — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:27:38 +0000

ATTENTION: ALL OF YOU SHOULD FIRST BLOCK ALL INFORMATION OUT OF YOUR MINDS AND ONLY PUT IN THE THOUGHT THAT YOU ARE A HUMAN BEING, GOD MADE YOU WITHOUT CLOTHES OR HATS !!! MAN HAS MODIFIED YOU TO THINK ITS COMPULSORY TO WEAR GAY CLOTHES...

LETS ALL LIVE IN PEACE.

WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.

By: john

john — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:45:57 +0000

‘Madarchod’ – no chance of a slightly less offensive name in the future, eh?

By: rZb

rZb — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:37:49 +0000

As much as this might anger GC… I like this idea!! Props to IKEA for being considerate. (well the color combo/logo might be a bit painful…but it’s the thought that counts)

While hijab is an extremely personal and powerful statement for the ladies who do observe it, it’s just an extra article of clothing to an employer like IKEA…a very visible and prominant article at that. If an employer can provide a tshirt, personally, I don’t see a problem in providing other articles of clothing.

By: Punjabi Boy

Punjabi Boy — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:50:27 +0000

Its an example of protest for the sake of it – agitation for the sake of it – its stupid – they can wear patka’s underneath the helmet – no problemo – millions of Sikhs do it every day when they need to work in that kind of place or do sport – its activism and protest for the sake of it.

By: Manish Vij

Manish Vij — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:57:51 +0000

I strongly support Sikhs’ religious rights. But with motorcycle helmets and hardhats, even after legal victory Sikh men are taking significant personal risk in not wearing those brainium shields.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:41:22 +0000

From CBC News:

Sikh truck drivers will file a human rights complaint Thursday against a rule that requires them to wear hardhats instead of turbans. They are fighting a requirement that prevents them from driving into CP Rail's two Toronto terminals without protective headwear. CP Rail said it is enforcing the hardhat rule because of safety concerns.

By: ikea lover

ikea lover — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:27:22 +0000

I think most of you are reading too much into this. I actually commend Ikea’s effort to accommodate the Islamic population of its employees. In a society where they are being judged for their way of being, Ikea is trying to make their employees feel more comfortable about wearing a hijab to work–This effort to make uniform hijabs says to people “Hey, it’s okay to wear one and we support it!”.

By: Bong Breaker

Bong Breaker — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:32:33 +0000

The thing is, there's a difference with the Sikh analogy. As far as I know, the first case was in the UK - the law was changed so that Sikhs did not have to wear motorcycle helmets, after widespread protest in the 70s (those of you from the States, not sure if you are aware of what it was really like for British Asians back then). This then led to the Sikh British Police Turban - a black and white check turban, somewhat similar to the turbans worn in the Indian army.

The point I'm making is that all these examples are ones where head gear is ESSENTIAL - it's part of the uniform. Hence allowances had to be made.

Now I'm not saying I'm against this hijab at all, it's up to the woman herself of course. I just think it's looks hilarious. Perhaps if you worked for Armani it'd be cool, but working for IKEA with that on your back, you look like a dork.

Up next - Nike swoosh bindis?

By: dhaavak

dhaavak — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:28:24 +0000

breaking news… the results are in. the hypothesis was disproved. we’re all the same – either side of the border… ………. diss…. accom &……….. 0 ….. 2 *|………. 2 ….. 2

on a bad note – heard of a hate crime in the neighborhood.

By: Madarchod

Madarchod — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:24:02 +0000

I had a friend with Kermit the frog on his yarmulke. (And he was 17! Maybe not sacreligious, but certainly dorky. Do you go to hell for that?)

no way! the muppets rule! it would've been better if the Swedish Chef was on there.