It was less the contradiction and more the calling out of an “holier than thou” attitude while also holding up oxfam as a foil,

Though on a more thorough read it seems more like i misunderstood why the reference was there, so i rescind my reply , with apologies.

I’m not saying it’s the worlds best charity, or even a good one, and I’m not the one who decided to be an ambassador for it. I just noted that they are a human rights charity and apparently she aligned with them enough to want to be their ambassador, but was no longer interested when she faced criticism from them over a brand deal with a BDS company.

Fair

If their controversy section makes you believe they should not be referred to as a human rights charity, please let me know what you feel would be more appropriate in this context.

I’m not the arbiter of what people are allowed to call something, i personally consider oxfam to be a corporation disguised as a charity but i wouldn’t try and force anyone to adhere to my opinion on that.

I would however use what i consider supporting evidence of my opinion as a foundation for an argument, as it evident.

Ultimately “charity” is technically correct, i can’t think of a more appropriate title that isn’t forcing my opinion.