THE ULTIMATE BETRAYAL: WHEN A HUSBAND PLAYS DEAD TO HIDE THE CHEAT

Once, a wealthy merchant kept a beautiful parrot in a gilded cage. Though the bird was provided with the finest seeds and sweet water, it spent its days staring through the bars, longing for the lush forests of its native India.

Before the merchant set off on a business trip to India, he asked each of his servants what gifts they desired. Finally, he turned to the parrot. "And what shall I bring for you from your homeland?"

The parrot replied, "I ask for no silks or jewels. Only this: when you see the free parrots of India, tell them that one of their own is trapped in a cage in a far-off land. Tell them I am dying of longing for them, and ask if they have any advice for me."

The merchant promised to deliver the message. Upon reaching India, he found a grove filled with wild parrots. He stood beneath the trees and shouted the message. To his horror, the moment he finished speaking, one of the wild parrots began to tremble violently. It fell from its branch and landed on the forest floor, seemingly dead.

The merchant was shaken with guilt. "I have caused the death of a kinsman," he lamented.

When he returned home, he distributed his gifts but avoided the parrot’s cage. Eventually, the bird asked, "What news from my brothers in India?"

The merchant sighed. "It is a heavy tale. When I spoke your words, one of the free parrots fell dead on the spot from grief."

As soon as the merchant uttered these words, the caged parrot began to tremble. It fell to the floor of its cage, its feathers still and its eyes closed. Heartbroken, the merchant wept for his companion. "To think my words killed you, too!"

Believing the bird to be dead, the merchant opened the cage door and placed the limp body on the windowsill to prepare it for burial. In an instant, the parrot's wings snapped open. It took flight, soaring to the highest branch of a nearby tree.

"What is this?" the merchant cried. "You deceived me!"

The parrot looked down and chirped, "The parrot in India was not a victim of grief; he was a messenger of truth. He showed me that it was my 'sweet song' and my 'beauty'—the very things you loved—that kept me a prisoner. He taught me that to be free, I had to die to the role you created for me."

With a final beat of its wings, the parrot flew toward the horizon, leaving the merchant alone with his empty golden cage.

Manupluation the story by husband - Playing Dead to Move On

In a modern, twisted adaptation of Rumi’s The Parrot and the Merchant, the "Golden Cage" is no longer a physical prison, but a marriage built on a wife’s loyalty. In this version, the parrot is a husband who has already wandered in his heart, seeking the thrill of infidelity while maintaining the comfort of his home.

​To escape the "cage" of his vows without being labeled a villain, he performs the ultimate act of manipulation: the performative collapse.

​The husband, already involved in an affair, begins to act out a spiritual and emotional death. He doesn't confess his cheating; instead, he plays the victim of his own life. He stops "singing," becoming a ghost in his own home. He tells his wife he is "suffering," "suffocating," and "losing his very soul" within the confines of their family.

​By acting "dead" to the world, he forces his wife into the role of the merchant. She watches him wither and feels an agonizing guilt, believing her love and their shared life are the bars that are killing him.

​The climax occurs when the husband "collapses" entirely. He reaches a point where he claims he can no longer function, effectively playing dead to the marriage. Heartbroken and desperate to save him, the wife does exactly what the merchant did: she opens the cage. She lets him go, believing that by releasing him, she is performing a final act of mercy for a man who is "dying" under the weight of domesticity.

​The moment the cage door swings open, the "dead" husband miraculously recovers. He takes flight, soaring straight to the "highest branch"—the life he had secretly built with his mistress.

​From this new height, he continues the deception:

• ​The Victim Narrative: He tells anyone who will listen that he was a "prisoner" and that his wife was responsible for his misery.
• ​The "Full Potential": He claims he has finally reached his true potential, framing his betrayal as a "spiritual awakening" rather than a calculated exit.
• ​The Guilt-Free Exit: By playing the victim, he avoids the guilt of his infidelity, leaving his wife to mourn a man who never truly existed, while he enjoys the freedom he stole through a lie.

THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE: DEFENDING THE THEMES OF "WAITING EYES ON THE ROAD"

I have written several books exploring the various angles of hidden societal issues. While I have always welcomed constructive criticism as a tool to improve my ideas and my craft, the response I have received regarding my book, **Waiting Eyes on the Road**, has often crossed the line from professional critique into personal harassment.

When individuals look at a book cover and immediately launch accusations of "discrimination" or claim the work is "against the middle or lower class," they are no longer engaging with the literature. This is not professional criticism; it is a form of sabotaging—a tactic more common in politics than in the arts. It is time to make a clear clarification to put an end to this nonsense.

**Waiting Eyes on the Road** is fundamentally a story about:

 * **Choice:** The power we have to steer our own lives.

 * **Freedom:** The right to exist without the weight of others' expectations.

 * **Politics and Journeys:** How the decisions we make fundamentally alter the path we walk.

For those playing the "discrimination game," I could easily turn the same questions back on you. Why did you choose your specific career? Why did you marry who you did? Why did you choose your specific lifestyle? Why did you choose to become a biological parent instead of adopting?

Since my book was published, I have been dodging a million questions like these. The answer is simple, yet it seems many critics have forgotten it: **Freedom.**

People are entitled to live exactly as they like, provided they do not interfere with others or negatively impact someone else's life through their choices. Ironically, those who question my choices are the ones interfering with my life. It is the height of hypocrisy to celebrate freedom while demanding that everyone else eat, shop, dress, travel, and live exactly as you do.

No one is obligated to pick what you pick, live where you live, or value what you value. An individual’s life is their business. The moment you believe you have the right to question someone else’s lifestyle, remember that they have the same right to question yours.

I hope this serves as a final word on this matter. I am here to discuss ideas and writing, but I will no longer tolerate sabotaging, harassment, or the interference with my fundamental freedom to live and write as I choose.

THE UNEDITABLE PAST

 Life is a tapestry of events, filled with unexpected ups and downs. While we can manage some challenges and must simply face others as part of the human journey, there is one boundary that should never be crossed: the attempt by others to rewrite your past.

Our identity is built upon our history. It is unacceptable for someone to attempt to distort the reality of your background or manipulate your surroundings to make you believe your life was something other than what you lived. This often extends to personal relationships, where an external force tries to dictate a narrative that contradicts your actual experience, forcing you and others to believe a person or a connection was something it was not.

When people dedicate their entire existence and resources to maintaining such a deception, they create a surreal and hollow environment. What begins as an effort to "rebrand" or change who you are inevitably descends into a cycle of:

 * **Abuse and Harassment:** Constant pressure to conform to a lie.

 * **Psychological Torture:** Systematically gaslighting you until you question your own memory and sense of self.

 * **Total Loss of Self:** They lose their own lives to the pursuit of this unreasonable change, while you are forced to spend your life defending yourself against their accusations, baseless assumptions, and fabrications.

Your background is not a project for someone else to edit. What makes you who you are is rooted in truth, and any attempt to replace that truth with imagination is not just a deception—it is an act of profound harm.

THE WEIGHT OF THE UNSEEN: WHY I SPEAK OUT

 To my readers and my critics, it is time to address the reality of why these stories reach the public eye. Being a writer who tackles ignored issues is rarely a path of least resistance; it is often paved with defamation, relentless criticism, and even threats.

Critics frequently fixate on the final word—the published article—without acknowledging the exhaustive history behind it. They see the "what" but choose to ignore the "how" and the "why."

Before a single word is ever shared with the public, I follow a rigorous, step-by-step process of seeking justice within the system:

 1. **Direct Resolution:** I first attempt to resolve the issue directly with the individuals involved, offering a chance for accountability at the source.

 2. **Internal Escalation:** If that fails, I bring the matter to higher management, trusting that leadership will rectify the situation.

 3. **Formal Complaints:** When ignored by leadership, I file official complaints with the relevant authorities, moving up the chain of command.

The problem arises when the system stops being a solution and starts being a shield. I have witnessed authorities choose to ignore the issue, or worse, attempt to "remove" the problem entirely—not by fixing it, but by erasing evidence and attacking my character to prove there was "never an issue in the first place."

When the base is destroyed to cover the cracks, silence is no longer an option.

I take these issues to the public not out of spite, but out of necessity:

 * **Solidarity:** There are individuals currently suffering through the exact same problems who need to know they are not alone.

 * **Awareness:** A community cannot fix what it does not know is broken.

 * **Oversight:** Public disclosure may reach organizations or advocates I might have missed during the formal process.

 * **The Journalist’s Mandate:** My fundamental responsibility is to share the truth. The public are the ones who live within these systems, the ones who vote, and the only ones with the collective power to stop corruption and ignorance.

As a writer, I am merely the mirror. If the image reflected is "ugly," it is not the fault of the glass, but of the reality it captures. We must look at it together if we ever hope to change it.

MODERN-DAY CINDERELLAS: SURVIVING THE INVISIBLE WAR OF ENVY

 We all grew up on the same diet of Walt Disney classics. We were taught that no matter how hard the struggle, good eventually overcomes evil. We waited for the "Happily Ever After," believing that the world possessed a natural equilibrium of justice.

But as many of us navigate the complexities of the real world, we discover a darker reality. The villains aren't just in the movies; they are in our offices, our healthcare systems, and our social circles. They don't always wear capes—sometimes they wear the suit of a lawyer, the coat of a family doctor, or the smile of a neighbor.

In the original tales, the Step-Mother and Step-Sisters didn’t just dislike Cinderella; they sought to systematically erase her. They didn't want her resources—they wanted her potential.

In the modern world, we see this through individuals who operate via:

• Idea Theft: Taking credit for someone else’s intellectual labor and "books."

• Social Isolation: Pushing "competitors" out of opportunities, jobs, and relationships to clear the path for their own "favorites."

• Resource Hoarding: Using positions of power—like real estate agents or lawyers—to gatekeep homes, trips, and basic comforts from those they deem "too lucky."

The most painful part of this experience is that these methods—bullying, emotional abuse, and "soft" slavery—leave no physical trace. Because they are subtle and psychological, they often fall through the cracks of our justice and healthcare systems.

How do you prove to a court that a group of people is collectively "stepping" on your rights to keep you from a normal life? How do you document the slow corrosion of your health and finances caused by a culture of envy? 

The system is designed to see the "hit," but it is often blind to the "push." This lack of visibility doesn't make the abuse any less real; it simply makes the victim’s battle twice as hard.

For years, I have faced this "Cinderella" treatment. It stems from a toxic assumption: that if I have a better job, a better relationship, or a better life, it is something that must be stolen or sabotaged. It is a competition I never asked to be a part of.

From my books being ruined to my financial stability being shaken, the reach of this "Step-Mother" mentality is long. It is a sickness in our culture that rewards those who climb by stepping on others, rather than those who build through merit.

Recognizing the pattern is the first step toward breaking it. By calling out these "Step-Mother" tactics, we strip them of their invisibility. We may be angry at a system that cannot yet see this abuse, but by sharing our stories, we begin to build a new kind of justice—one based on awareness, boundaries, and the refusal to be pushed out of our own lives.

The fairy tales told us good wins in the end. It’s time we start doing the hard work of making that true in the real world.

RICH IN STATUS, POOR IN SOUL

 When a victim tries to get her rights, or at least asks for those who butchered and ruined her life to face questions, it seems like a minimum request for justice. Unfortunately, those who suffered from trauma at some time in their life and then suddenly hold power, money, or high education believe they are entitled to hide their negligence and harassment under that wealth or status.

​It is distressing to see so many people sabotaging their own power and positions because they feel their childhood abuse or past invisibility defines who they are now. It is sad and makes us feel sorry for them. While they believe they have the upper hand in every situation, in reality, they are victims themselves who did not receive justice on time. By sabotaging others through their money and positions, they try to get revenge and recover.

While this loop is unacceptable in every way—that a target of bullying then targets innocent victims for his own cure and recovery—it is systematic abuse. It is not clear who should be blamed: an innocent victim who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, or a rich, powerful person in a high position who, after having everything, still needs to bully others to feel good. When a system is corrupted or we face systemic abuse, no one is safe—not you, not me, not the children, and not even the previous generation.

WHY WE ONLY FIGHT THE PARTS OF RACISM THAT FEEL COMFORTABLE

 The history of human discrimination is long and complex, rooted in centuries of rigid social hierarchies. While modern legal frameworks are now designed to protect individuals from harassment based on race, physical appearance, or age, the application of these protections often feels inconsistent. To dismantle these systems, we must first understand the psychological and societal mechanisms that sustain them.

Harassment often stems from deep-seated psychological triggers within the aggressor rather than any action taken by the victim. By examining these triggers, we can see how personal history and cognitive biases shape discriminatory behavior.

1. The Projection of Insecurity

Frequently, those who target others for their "posture," "body shape," or "race" are manifesting an internal fear or a desperate need for control. When an individual feels inadequate or threatened by their own perceived shortcomings, they may project that negativity onto others. By demeaning someone else’s physical presence, the harasser attempts to stabilize their own fragile sense of superiority.

2. Childhood Development and "Othering"

Psychologists often note that exclusionary behaviors can be traced back to early environments. If a child grows up in a household or community where "othering"—the act of treating a group as intrinsically different or alien—is modeled as a defense mechanism, they are likely to carry those patterns into adulthood. In these cases, harassment isn't just a choice; it is a learned response to the unknown or the "different."

3. The Cognitive Bias: Halo and Horn Effects

Society often reacts disproportionately to physical appearance . ​While modern society has made strides in labeling certain forms of discrimination as unacceptable, a significant blind spot remains. We are witnessing a peculiar phenomenon where harassment based on "better" or "stronger" physical traits—or specific racial identities—is frequently ignored or, in some cases, even encouraged by media and advertising.

The most concerning aspect of this trend is how it has been absorbed as an acceptable behavior. While the law is designed to prevent harassment, there is a systemic ignorance regarding those targeted for traits that are "not in human control," such as genetics, skin color, or a naturally strong constitution.

Isn't it time we actually manage and stop racism in every single dimension? We cannot continue to only address the parts that are convenient or comfortable for us to notice. Real change doesn't happen when we pick and choose; it happens when we confront the systemic, the subtle, and the institutionalized bias that we’ve ignored for too long.

THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE "ANTI-DIGITAL" HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN

There is a coordinated group actively monitoring comments and new posts to immediately launch fresh accusations. They employ a tactic of mimicking legal warnings—treating every word as if it will be "used against you in a court of law"—but they transform this into a "sport court" dynamic, acting like hostile in-laws who twist every statement.

However i personally has been experiencing this harassment forvyears but I tested by a simple comment acknowledging that police are responsive 24/7, including holidays and after midnight which is a fact .

Bullies immediately weaponized the statement, claiming it meant the writer was "against" doctors, lawyers, or other professions. They use negative inference to create a "no-win" situation for the author.

This abusive spying and harassment has been in place for 15 years, with the primary goal of preventing online posts and digital production. The perpetrators often present themselves as:

 * Manual laborers or those who work with their hands.

 * Athletic or physical workers.

 * Those in non-office environments.

* A group against AI

While these groups currently performing they are fighting against AI to protect their jobs from being replaced, this is a recent excuse.

 This pattern of harassment and digital suppression existed for over a decade before AI became a mainstream concern. In their minds, attacking a writer's post is a "fight against AI," but their history proves the harassment is actually rooted in a long-standing desire to stifle online and digital work as well as independence work.

For years, I was subjected to constant, 24/7 unpleasantness and threats targeting my weight, body shape, and even my grocery choices. I often wondered what was behind this relentless intrusion into my private life.

​It has become clear that these groups have a specific bias against authors and writers who work independently and digitally. They prefer creators to be dependent on a system they can control, rather than standing alone based on the merit of their own digital work.

​The mystery of their motivation is now solved: they are operating as "in-laws" within their own self-styled "sport court." They have brought the messy, abusive, and toxic dynamics of a family conflict into the professional and digital space.

They treat the writer like an unwanted relative, using personal insults and "in-law" style interrogation to create a hostile environment.To use the "worst messy abusive acts" to break the writer's spirit and stop their digital production.

THE SHADOW OF STATUS

I often look back to my younger years when I was first searching for a job. Even then, I noticed a strange, recurring pattern: if you already had a job, you were in high demand. But if you were unemployed, you were often dismissed as "unqualified" before anyone even glanced at your resume or sat you down for an interview.

As time went on, I realized this pattern wasn't restricted to the workplace—it bled into our personal lives, too.

In relationships, the logic was just as flawed. If someone was already in a partnership—even a toxic or unhappy one—they were viewed as a "success." Others suddenly found them more attractive or worthy. Yet, if a woman was single, she was often cast as a "failure" by default. At the time, we didn't fully grasp how unfair this environment was. We just lived in it.

It wasn't until I started writing and observing the world with more intention that I saw how deep these assumptions run. This unfair judgment follows us through every stage of life:

 * The Professional: You are only as good as your current title.

 * The Personal: Your worth is tied to your relationship status.

 * The Retired: Once you stop working, society treats you as if you’ve committed a crime—suddenly, you are seen as "unqualified" for life itself.

There is a coldness in how society treats those it deems "extra." People treat the elderly as if they occupy an "unpleasant status," forgetting the most basic law of time: Life moves faster than we realize. Those who judge others for being jobless, single, or old are ignoring their own future. Tomorrow, they will be the ones without the job, the ones outside of the relationship, or the ones facing the quiet of retirement. We are all just one sunset away from being the person we once looked down upon.

"We judge others by their current status, forgetting that status is a temporary shadow cast by time."

PERSONHOOD OVER GENDER

 In every industry—from the construction site to the courtroom—we are surrounded by a vocabulary of the past. We hear terms like manpower, foreman, and man-hours. While many dismiss these as "just words," they are actually the lingering echoes of a world that once decided men were the sole architects of business and society.

​We are finally witnessing a shift. In progressive circles, "manpower" is becoming person-power, "foreman" is becoming supervisor, and "man-hours" are becoming person-hours. This isn't just about being "correct"; it’s about acknowledging that expertise does not have a gender.

​However, we are also facing a fierce "pushback." There are still those who insist that being a man is synonymous with power and supervision. In my own journey through law, medicine, and finance, I have seen men in critical positions use their gender as an excuse to "teach a woman a lesson," or worse, to sabotage her work because they believe power is a male birthright.

​For years, I wondered where this desperate need for dominance came from. I eventually realized that this mentality starts long before a man enters an office. It begins in the home.

​In many societies, women still live in male-dominated environments where marriage is treated like a hierarchy rather than a partnership. When a man is raised to believe he must be the "boss" of his home without question, he naturally tries to control the women in his professional life under the guise of "manpower."

​The most frustrating part of this journey has been the judgment I faced after my separation. I encountered a "shallow group" of people—both men and women—who tried to evaluate my life based on the absence of a man. To them, a woman living without a man is "weak," "needy," or "desperate."

​Even more insulting is the "Mystery Man" myth: the idea that if a woman is successful, her accomplishments must secretly be credited to a man behind the scenes. This is a deliberate attempt to prove that women are incapable of holding power on their own.

​The interference these groups try to run in our lives—the constant questioning of our strength and the credit given to men for our hard work—is more than just an annoyance. It is a form of harassment.

​We are not "needy" because we are alone; we are powerful because we have chosen to define ourselves. It is time we retire the vocabulary of the past and start recognizing power for what it truly is: a matter of character and skill, not a gendered legacy.

BEYOND THE BETRAYAL: WHY I REFUSE TO LEAVE

 Thank you for your thoughtful questions and for engaging so deeply with my story in my book ( Can we talk ). Many of you have asked if, given the hardships I’ve faced, I regret moving to Canada. It is a complex question that deserves a clear answer.

​In my book, I shared the pain of trusting my ex-husband’s promise of a shared future, only to be told that if I couldn't find work, I should return to Iran alone. To be left behind after years of building a life—especially during a period of illness and job loss—was a profound betrayal of that initial trust.

​However, it is important to distinguish between the regret of a personal relationship and my commitment to my life here. While I have faced long-term discrimination and a toxic environment that authorities have yet to fully address, I am not willing to leave.

​I have spent decades in Canada. This is where I have stood up for my rights and where I continue to demand the dignity and professional respect I deserve. My journey is no longer about the person who brought me here; it is about the person I have become while staying here. I am staying to see my fight for justice through and to ensure that the time I have invested in this country is honored.

​I hope this clarifies my perspective and helps you understand the strength behind my decision to stay.

A RESPONSE TO NONSTOP HARASSMENT

 It has come to my attention that a significant amount of energy is being spent by strangers—people I do not know and who have no place in my private life—to speculate on my relationships. This has moved beyond simple gossip; the constant creation of theories and the linking of my every move to a past or current partner has become a form of emotional and mental abuse.

To clarify once and for all:

 * Regarding my Ex-Husband: We have no interest or plans to reunite. We have both decided that separate lives are in our best interest, and we are both living better for it.

 * Current Status: I am not currently in a relationship, nor do I have any plans to enter one. My focus remains entirely on my professional life and my writing.

It is clear that these attacks on my personal life are a tactic to stop me from posting my political opinions. To those who try to threaten me with "Do not tell," or who respond to my social posts and books by attacking my character: Stop this abusive approach.

I am an independent writer. I will continue to write and say whatever I believe needs to be said. Your attempts to create a toxic environment—including the "echoing voices" and threats in my own home—only prove that what I am saying contains a truth you are desperate to cover up.

This pattern of abuse has unfortunately extended into my neighborhood, the healthcare system, telecommunications, and even legal structures.

 * If you do not like my writing, simply do not read it. Leave it for those who value the work and need an outsider eyes for improving society and countries. 

 * Those who are open to critics and listen to an Independent voice , stop this unpleasant threatening. My life is not a targeted project, and my voice will not be silenced by abusers gossip.

CONDOLENCES TO THE PEOPLE OF IRAN

 To the people of Iran, and to all those mourning the loss of loved ones, and fellow citizens:

I wish to offer my deepest and most sincere condolences. The loss of those who stood up for their convictions and their dignity is a profound tragedy that resonates far beyond borders. Their courage and their stories are held in solemn remembrance.

May the families find strength in their shared memory, and may the collective grief of the nation find a path toward healing and solace. My thoughts are with every individual carrying the weight of this loss.

OFFICIAL CLARIFICATION: I AM SAM SMITH

 Just a quick "identity check" for those who are new here! I’ve heard a few rumors that I have a twin or that a man is behind my books. While I'm flattered by the mystery, the truth is much simpler:  I am the sole voice behind the name Sam Smith.

"Sam Smith" is the pen name I use for all my writing. Whether you know me by my real name or my pen name, please know that I am a solo, independent author. "Every word, plot twist, and character comes directly from me—no twins, no ghostwriters, and no committee."

Furthermore, I want to address the unpleasant and incorrect assumptions being made about my personal life. Any move I make—whether related to people or projects—is my own. I live for myself, and my personal life is not connected to any specific group or individual. I kindly ask that you respect my independence as both a person and a creator.

THE SHADOW POWER OF SILENCE: RETHINKING DIGITAL VISIBILITY

 The old expression "do not be scared of those who are loud, be scared of those who are quiet" has taken on a chilling new meaning in the digital era. Historically, this proverb suggested that loud people vent their frustrations openly, while quiet people might be calculating their next move. Today, this social dynamic has evolved into a dangerous power imbalance involving public presence, cyber harassment, and underground activities.

In our current culture, having an active online profile is often treated as an invitation for scrutiny. When a person is public, sharing their thoughts and information, they become a soft target. Because their lives are documented and accessible, they are frequently subjected to harassment, abuse, or coordinated cyberattacks.

There is a disturbing logic at play here: many believe that because someone is "loud" or visible, they are fair game. This transparency is often mistaken for a lack of power, making the individual appear vulnerable to those who wish to cause harm from the safety of the shadows.

On the flip side, we are seeing the rise of a culture that equates a lack of digital presence with hidden strength or "underground" authority. By remaining off the grid and staying quiet, certain individuals or groups cultivate an aura of mystery that commands fear.

As you have noted, some use this lack of a media profile as a deliberate cover. While many stay offline for simple privacy, a more dangerous segment uses this total anonymity to facilitate illegal activities. Because they have no footprint, they are difficult to track, making them the silent "center of fear" in many communities. They understand the cultural bias that the quietest person in the room is the most dangerous, and they use that perception to operate without accountability.

This divide creates a toxic environment. It suggests that if you choose to participate in public life, you must accept being a target, while those who hide away are granted a form of "untouchable" status. This culture rewards those who operate in the dark and punishes those who are honest and open.

When groups deliberately use their lack of profile to shield illegal or harmful behavior, they are exploiting a gap in how we understand power. The "quiet ones" are not always just being private; sometimes, they are utilizing the fear of the unknown to maintain control and avoid the consequences of their actions.

DEMOCRACY DEMANDS DIALOGUE: A RESPONSE TO MY CRITICS

As a Canadian-Iranian writer who has spent 20 years fighting for the right to speak my mind, I believe it is time to address the wave of verbal threats, sarcasm, and linguistic manipulation I received following my last post.

My "offense" was simple: I urged journalists to report on the situation in Iran with accuracy and neutrality, without taking sides. For this, I have been met with hostility from those who claim to want freedom for Iran, yet refuse to tolerate a dissenting opinion.

If we are truly striving for democracy, we must understand its fundamental requirement: the existence of opposition. * Dictatorship thrives on a single, forced narrative and the silencing of "others."

 * Democracy thrives on a variety of voices, even—and especially—the ones we disagree with.

My Position as an Independent Writer

I want to be very clear to those attempting to pressure me:

 * I will not apologize: I will not alter my beliefs to make you happy, nor will I change my tone to be liked.

 * Independence is my foundation: My thoughts are not for sale, and they are not subject to the approval of a mob.

 * Respect my boundaries: Threatening my personal life or trying to interfere with my privacy does not prove your point; it only proves that you have not yet learned the basic tenets of the freedom you claim to seek.

 "Freedom of speech is unnecessary if it only applies to the voices we agree with. It is meant specifically to protect the right to be different."

Instead of spending your energy trying to silence me, I invite you to learn how to be open to ideas that do not match your own. That is the only way we will ever build a society that is truly free.

HOW TWO DECADES OF SYSTEMIC ABUSE TRYING TO SHUT ME UP

 As many of you are aware, I began writing after enduring a prolonged period in a toxic environment marked by systemic injustice. My goal has always been to shed light on social, economic, and political issues that are either overlooked or intentionally ignored.

However, from the moment I began sharing my voice, my private life became a target. For twenty years, I have lived under a microscope. My health and medical records, my financial information, my relationships, and my family status have all been weaponized against me in the public eye.

The harassment I face is not just digital; it is pervasive. I have experienced:

• Surveillance: Constant monitoring of my daily habits—what I eat, wear, and say—often echoed back to me immediately as a intimidation tactic.

• Cyber-Attacks: Systematic hacking of my computers and private data.

• Domestic Interference: The inability to even watch a movie or listen to music in my own home without facing "feedback" or retaliation from these bullies.

• Character Assassination: The spreading of rumors in every community I enter to turn people against me before I even arrive.

Most devastatingly, these bullies have targeted my family. They use my daughters and my ex-husband as "front-line" tools, attempting to create a rift between us through mirroring and manipulation. By painting me as the problem and utilizing narcissistic tactics, they aim to isolate me from those I love most.

I have not been silent. I have filed hundreds of complaints with organizations across Canada—from local authorities to the highest levels of government, including Human Rights commissions, Public Safety Canada, and Cyber Security agencies and courts . Despite these efforts, the abuse has not only continued but escalated.

This twenty-year campaign of emotional harassment and privacy invasion has one goal: to shut me up. They want to prevent me from disclosing the truth about their abuse and the injustices I have witnessed.

I am posting this today to inform the public of what has been planned and executed against me for two decades. I am asking for the world to see the reality of the situation I live in and the lengths to which bullies will go to suppress the truth.

THE SINGLE STIGMA

 One of the most significant social issues in North America today, particularly in Canada, is the contradictory pressure surrounding romantic relationships. We see a strange phenomenon: those in relationships are often desperate to get out, while those who are single are desperate to get in. Even more troubling is the number of individuals who remain in unhappy partnerships simply to avoid the labels of "single," "divorced," or "separated."

​There is a pervasive, unfair assumption that if a person—especially a woman—is divorced, separated, or has never been in a serious relationship, there must be a fundamental flaw in her character. This "wrong culture" suggests that:

• ​Couples are "Successful": Regardless of how miserable or toxic their private life is, their status protects them from judgment.
• ​Singles are "Broken": Even if they are thriving, happy, and independent, society views them as a problem to be solved.

​This insecurity often leads to social exclusion. Couples, driven by a fear of losing their partner or a lack of trust, frequently exclude single individuals from gatherings. It’s as if the mere presence of a single person is a threat to the stability of their own relationship. This creates a society that feels like an imbalanced scale, where one side is held out of reach and the other is weighed down by social expectations.

​We hide behind a thousand excuses to justify why relationships fail or why we won't give someone a chance:

• ​External Factors: Money, health, education, and job status.
• ​Demographics: Race, culture, language,look and age.

​Yet, we see rich couples who cannot stand one another and poor couples who struggle daily. The reality is that true connection comes down to type and chemistry, not a checklist of social credentials.

​This is a social problem that everyone sees, but most choose to ignore. Speaking out against these norms often feels like a "crime" that invites harsh judgment. However, it is time for public education and a cultural shift. We must learn that being single is not a failure, and being in a relationship is not a trophy.

It is time to stop judging and start valuing individual happiness over societal status, ending the marginalization of singles fueled by our own fear of failure.

THE NARRATIVE OF MODERN SACRIFICE IN TOXIC DYNAMICS

 The transition from overt harassment to a calculated performance of kindness is not a sign of reform. It is a sophisticated psychological maneuver where the bully pivots to the role of a nice cop. For those who have endured two decades of injustice within toxic work environments and personal relationships, this sudden shift is a tactical phase of the cycle. It is designed to complete a total reversal of roles, where the perpetrator is rebranded as the reasonable party and the victim is cast as the disturbed antagonist.

This technique relies on the total exhaustion of the target. After twenty years of systemic violation, the bully capitalizes on a person's vulnerability by introducing small variations in behavior. They play nice just enough to make the victim feel unstable for maintaining their defenses. It is a deliberate effort to make the victim forget their history, effectively silencing the narrative of how a successful business and family woman was systematically dismantled.

The power dynamic in these scenarios is reinforced by a perceived immunity. When bullies possess wealth and status, they operate under the assumption that they are allowed to violate the rights of others. In this landscape, the justice system does not merely fail to intervene; it often ignores the evidence and rewards the bullies, granting them further social or professional standing. This institutional silence provides cover for the aggressor, ensuring that the gaslighting and injustice never truly end.

A particularly invasive element of this long-term campaign is the manipulation of identity to maintain control. Bullies frequently cross the line by infantilizing the victim, pretending an adult woman is a child who requires them to make decisions for her. Conversely, they may flip this script entirely, demanding the victim take on the burden of a provider who must solve the problems of the bullies' own children and resolve their future crises.

This creates a parasitic relationship where the victim is treated like a slave or a resource. The bully expects the target to live at their level and follow their lifestyle while simultaneously forcing the target to find resolutions for the bully’s financial, health, and relationship problems. By framing the victim as responsible for everyone else’s wealth and well-being, the abusers successfully mask their control as a form of social or familial obligation.

At its core, this dynamic mirrors a sacrificial narrative. The victim is treated as an entity meant to be offered up for the benefit or the testing of others, reminiscent of the story of Esmaiel and Ebrahim. In this warped worldview, the bullies cast themselves as agents of a higher test, believing they have the right to sacrifice the victim’s life, success, and mental health as a demonstration of their own power or as a solution to their own grievances.

Ultimately, this psychological warfare is intended to force a state of total submission. By making the victim’s living situation miserable, the abusers hope to force her to forget the decades of physical and emotional abuse. They want to see the target fall, hoping she will eventually beg for the very people who destroyed her life to return to it. This cycle of taking a person down is how they maintain their sense of power and avoid the loss of control they fear most.

YOUR DELUSION IS NOT MY REALITY

 Every writer possesses a wild imagination; it is the engine that drives us to create worlds of crime, romance, or fantasy. But there is a dark side to being a creator—not from within, but from the assumptions of others. For over 15 years, I have lived under a microscope of "guesswork" where every action I take is twisted to fit an abusive narrative.

For these individuals, my life is not my own; it is a script they are trying to direct. They have populated my world with "characters" labeled by numbers (1, 2, 3, 4...).

• The Accusations: If I buy something, it’s a "clue." If I watch a movie, I’m "reporting" to someone. Even being sick is treated as a calculated move in their imaginary game.

• The Numbered Ghosts: Numbers 1 and 2 seem to be their favorites. They’ve invented "exes" and "contacts" associated with these digits, insisting I am in constant communication with people who do not exist in my reality.

If these thoughts stayed in their heads, it would be manageable. Instead, it has evolved into active harassment:

1. Demand for Action: They expect me to host parties for these imaginary people or "find" them in the real world.

2. Invasion of Privacy: They assume these characters live in my home or communicate with me through the TV.

3. Erasure of Truth: Despite my clear statements that my book characters are fiction, they insist they are real people. They’ve even fabricated "living" parents or siblings moving to Canada, claiming every move I make is for them.

This nonsense has persisted since long before I started writing, but my career has unfortunately given them fresh fuel. Most distressingly, this "fan fiction" of my life has bled into legal matters, where their baseless guesses are treated with a seriousness they don't deserve.

It is a bizarre irony: I write fiction for a living, yet I am the one fighting to stay grounded in facts while others try to force me to live inside their broken fantasies.