In the high-stakes world of ISO certification and accreditation, transparency should be non-negotiable. So when BluestarCMI CEO Zyrus Oyong publicly challenged Christopher Paris, VP of Oxebridge, to a fact-based debate, Paris’s response was telling—he blocked Oyong on LinkedIn and refused to engage. The move wasn’t strategic. It was scared.
What Sparked the Challenge?
Paris has built a reputation for attacking the International Accreditation Forum (IAF), Accreditation Bodies (ABs), and Certification Bodies (CBs)—often accusing them of fraud and corruption. But when Oyong called him out and proposed a public debate with high stakes (the loser shuts down their company), Paris backed away.
Instead of defending his claims with evidence, he resorted to personal insults and evasive tactics, including derogatory remarks about Oyong’s identity and social media presence.
Fear Over Facts
Paris’s refusal to debate raises serious questions:
- Was he scared his claims wouldn’t hold up under scrutiny?
- Did he fear losing credibility in front of industry professionals?
- Was blocking Oyong a way to avoid being exposed?
In an industry built on auditability and accountability, fear-driven silence speaks volumes.
Here is why.
Reasons Behind Oxebridge’s Avoidance Behavior
1. Unverified Claims and Lack of Peer Review
Oxebridge frequently publishes strong accusations against accreditation bodies, certification bodies, and ISO itself. However, many of these claims are:
- Based on anecdotal evidence
- Lacking third-party validation
- Presented with limited transparency on sources
This makes the platform vulnerable to rebuttal in a structured debate, where evidence and logic are paramount.
2. Mixing Consulting with Advocacy
Oxebridge has criticized consultants for recommending certification bodies—calling it a breach of impartiality and a violation of ISO 17021-1.
Yet in a surprising twist, Oxebridge now formally recommends OPG Certifications, a CB it helped build and implement systems for. Their own words: “OPG is built with Oxebridge DNA.”
Oxebridge’s Dual Role
- Oxebridge recently abandoned its neutrality policy and began formally recommending certification bodies to its clients.
- One such body, OPG Certifications, is described as being built with “Oxebridge DNA” in its auditing approach.
- Oxebridge also implemented ISO 17021 for OPG Certifications, which governs how certification bodies operate.
This suggests that Oxebridge:
- Consulted on the setup of a certification body
- Now recommends that same body to its clients
- May have influence over its auditing style
3. Pattern of Blocking Critics
When challenged—such as by Zyrus Oyong—Paris reportedly blocked him on LinkedIn rather than engaging in dialogue. This behavior suggests a preference for controlling the narrative rather than defending it in open forums.
4. Fear of Reputational Damage
A high-stakes debate, especially one proposing that the losing party shut down their company, could risk significant reputational fallout. If Paris’s claims were disproven, it could undermine years of advocacy and damage Oxebridge’s credibility.
5. Satirical and Aggressive Tone
Oxebridge’s content often includes satire and harsh language, which may work in blog posts but not in professional debate settings. This tone could backfire when confronted with calm, evidence-based counterarguments.
6. Contradictions in Advocacy vs. Practice
Oxebridge positions itself as a champion of ISO integrity, yet:
- It has been accused of mixing consulting with certification, a direct violation of ISO 17021-1.
- Paris’s critiques often target others for similar conflicts of interest, raising questions about double standards.
This contradiction could be difficult to defend in a live debate, where inconsistencies are easily exposed.
7. Reputation Built on Satire and Shock Value
Oxebridge’s blog and social media presence often rely on:
- Satirical language, memes, and aggressive tone
- Mockery of individuals and institutions, rather than structured critique
While this style garners attention, it may not translate well into formal debate, where professionalism and evidence are expected.
8. Lack of Institutional Backing
Unlike BluestarCMI, which operates within recognized accreditation frameworks, Oxebridge:
- Functions as an independent watchdog without formal oversight
- May lack institutional credibility to defend its claims under pressure
This could make Paris hesitant to face opponents backed by legitimate accreditation bodies.
9. Risk of Legal Exposure
A public debate could open the door to:
- Defamation claims, if accusations are proven false
- Regulatory scrutiny, especially if Oxebridge’s practices violate ISO norms
Avoiding debate may be a risk mitigation strategy, not just a personal choice.
10. Control Over Narrative
By operating through blogs and social media, Paris maintains:
- Editorial control over what gets published
- Selective engagement, blocking critics and deleting comments
A live debate removes that control, forcing real-time accountability—something Oxebridge may not be prepared for.
BluestarCMI’s Stand
BluestarCMI continues to champion accreditation integrity, fact-based dialogue, and industry transparency. When misinformation threatens the credibility of global standards, the answer isn’t censorship—it’s courage.