THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Anti-Colonialism

Anti-colonialism challenges structures that possess the power to uphold systems of marginalization and oppression while promoting equality and universality (Smith, 2012). More specifically, this framework investigates the relationship between powerful colonial systems and demographic groups determined by race, ethnicity, gender, class, religion, language ability, and sexuality (Dei, 2000; Dei & Ashgarzadeh, 2001), which results in the marginalization and othering of individuals categorized into groups that are deemed non-dominant, including Indigenous people, Black people, and non-white migrants. This, in turn, produces unequal social relations for Indigenous, Black, and immigrants from non-European countries with their dominant-group counterparts (Dua 2007; Thobani, 2007). The latter half of the 20th century introduced liberalizing policies for immigrants and refugees under the pretense of multiculturalism and diversity. This has led to “colour-blindness,” which ignores the impact of systemic racism and colonial structures on racialized people (Pon, 2009; Thobani, 2000; Williams, 2011).

Critical Race Theory

The idea that power relations strongly influence race and racism is the foundation of critical race theory (CRT) (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Matsuda et al.,1993). To further this concept, Solorzano (1997) highlights how CRT is “a framework or a set of basic perspectives, methods, and pedagogy that seeks to identify, analyze, and transform those structural and cultural aspects of society that maintain the subordination and marginalization of people of colour” (p. 6). Critical race theory actively challenges dominant discourses and centres its perspectives around marginalized populations. As such, CRT values the knowledge of marginalized people acquired through their experience of social inequality (Crenshaw, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2003). Additional to furthering the theoretical knowledge of the consequences of racism, CRT positions itself to take action against social injustices and works to attain equity for marginalized groups (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Matsuda et al., 1993). Racism can change social realities for racialized communities, and CRT is beneficial in this regard because it brings forward the voices of marginalized individuals, and in our case, racialized immigrant youth, and the impact of being exposed to FV.

A Rights-Based Approach to Children

Although children are affected by governments’ actions, the child’s perspective seldom impacts the decision-making process (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2002; UNICEF, 2001).

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights (2007) has advocated for a rights-based approach to children. This perspective rejects treating children as objects that require care and protection and embraces the right of children to be respected and treated as human beings. A rights-based approach demands that states remain accountable to children’ rights and design programs that meet their needs and protect them. Vandergrift, from World Vision Canada, as the Chair of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children, spoke of the advantages of this approach:

The rights-based approach adds real value because it puts the whole child in the centre, and then looks at all components and all factors that can impact that child’s situation. It is not just addressing one need—food, water or some of those things—but it looks at the whole child and treats that child as an actor in the situation, not just as a passive recipient. (Standing Senate Committee of Human Rights, 2007, p. 26)

This approach operates with the assumption that children represent one of the most vulnerable groups in society. As such, their rights are often compromised when they compete with the rights of adults.

This rights-based approach to children is an essential framework in the Canadian context and for this study. Canada supports the articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1991). Below are the articles from the convention that are relevant to this study:

• • Article 9—respect the right of the child not to be separated from parents against their wish except in circumstances that go against the best interest of the child;
  • Article 12—a child has the right to express their views, including in legal proceedings;
  • Article 16—a child’s privacy is to be protected from indiscriminate and illegal intervention;
  • Article 18—a child’s upbringing and ensuring the best interests of the child are attended to are the responsibility of parents or the legal guardian;
  • Article 19—the government is responsible for protecting children from physical and mental violence, sexual abuse, injury, neglect, maltreatment and exploitation, even when the child is in the care of parents or a legal guardian. (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2002):

The UNCRC highlights that the rights of a child are independent of their race, colour, sex, religion, language, political or other opinions, national or social origin, disability, property, birth or other status. The UNCRC also promotes the state’s responsibility to respect every child’s right to life and ensure that their rights are upheld without discrimination.

Alongside other Member States, Canada adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) laid out by the United Nations. The SDGs specify in their implementation by 2030 no one is [to be] left behind. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) presented a report to the General Assembly of United Nations (2016) on implementing the protection of children’s rights by 2030 that highlighted the intricate relationship between a child’s rights and the 2030 deadline. Although it did not explicitly name children, the targets relate to protecting and promoting children’s rights. Furthermore, the international community has become increasingly aware that ensuring children’s rights is a prerequisite for the 2030 target deadline. Therefore, a systematic rights-based approach to children is imperative to ensure that no child is left behind in the implementation of the SDGs.

Anti-Oppression Practice (AOP)

The three foundational components of AOP are power, intersectionality and oppression (Frazer & Seymour, 2017). Within AOP, oppression is the unfair use of power by the authority to promote negative stereotypes and other interiorization processes of marginalized groups (Ferguson & Lavalette, 2006; Nzira & Williams, 2009).

According to an AOP, power and inequality impact the lives of marginalized groups, resulting in their oppression (Ferguson & Lavalette, 2006; McLaughlin, 2005, 2016). Oppression is also understood in the context of intersectionality, an idea initially proposed by Crenshaw (1991). Intersectionality highlights how experiences of disadvantage, privilege, discrimination and oppression are intricately interlocked. Collins (2015) furthers this idea in that “intersectionality refers to the critical insight that race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but as reciprocally constructing phenomena that in turn shape complex social inequalities” (p. 2).

Galtung (1990) further elaborates on how marginalized groups are vulnerable to three types of violence related to their oppression: direct, structural and cultural. Direct violence is the interpersonal or collective violence exercised by one group against another group for the purpose of political, economic and social goals. Structural violence is “social arrangements” that are “embedded in the political and economic organization of our social world (Farmer et al., 2006, p. 1686), which advances specific groups and individuals over others. Finally, cultural violence is culture, religion, ideology, language, and dominant knowledge that is “used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence (Galtung, 1990, p. 291) and that makes “exploitation and/or repression [seem] as normal and natural” (p. 295) or not seen at all.

The AOP perspective and understanding of violence are essential to this study because experiences of oppression and violence are rooted in structural conditions (Frazer & Seymour, 2017; McDonald, 2005; Morley et al., 2014). Furthermore, violence directed against individuals and groups can often be traced back to structural and cultural violence. The disadvantage experienced by marginalized groups can also increase, depending on the intersecting identities of individuals. Therefore, responses to these problems demand a multidisciplinary solution that supports the affected individual and recognizes their rights (McLaughlin, 2005, 2016). Additionally, it is important to engage with the systems that contribute to and perpetuate the violence an individual is subjected to (Baines, 2017; Morley et al., 2014). Using Galtung’s framework, our analysis demonstrates how systemic violence worsens and complicates the impact of FV on racialized immigrant children.