This Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage in Canada formed in 1913,^[1] it was established to provide a platform for those who believe that granting women the parliamentary franchise would be contrary to the best interests of the state. While it actively engages in civic, social, and moral reform, the organization maintains that such goals are better pursued without extending voting rights to women.^[2] It is the first and only organization in Canada advocating for anti-suffragism.^[3]

Between 1872 and 1917, opposition to women's suffrage, especially in Ontario came from both men and women who believed that granting women the vote would negatively affect society. These views played a key role in shaping the broader discourse around suffrage in the province. Early resistance was primarily led by men, drawing heavily on the ideas of figures such as Goldwin Smith and Andrew Macphail. Over time, however, leadership of the anti-suffrage movement shifted to women, beginning with Clementina Fessenden in Hamilton. This trend culminated in the founding of the Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage in Canada in 1913.^[4]

The Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage in Canada brought together a group of elite Canadian women who believed that extending the parliamentary franchise to women would harm the fabric of the state. Among its leadership were Sarah Trumbull Van Lennep (Mrs. H. D. Warren), who served as president, and several vice-presidents including Miss Campbell, Mrs. H. S. Strathy (Alice Evelyn Dent), and Mrs. H. C. Rae. The association also included Miss Barron as treasurer, Miss Laing as recording secretary, and Miss Plummer, based at Sylvan Towers in Toronto, as corresponding secretary.^[2]

These women used their social status and organizational skills to advance anti-suffrage ideas through civic engagement and public discourse. One notable initiative was the association’s sponsorship of four lecture, one given by British author John Cowper Powys, held at Guild Hall in Toronto.^[5] Such events were designed to challenge the arguments of suffragists, who were actively campaigning for voting rights through groups like the Manitoba Political Equality League and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union.

Prominent members played key roles in shaping the association’s public image. Alice Evelyn Dent, a figure well-known in Toronto’s philanthropic and horticultural circles, lent her social prestige to the movement in her role as vice-president.^[6] She worked closely with Mary Grier, the association’s secretary.^[7] Together, they embodied the upper-class female leadership that gave the anti-suffrage campaign a veneer of respectability. Meanwhile, Mrs. J. H. Burnham, another influential figure, served as president and spoke publicly about the perceived risks of enfranchising women, warning that it could destabilize both family roles and national unity.^[7]

Van Lennep holds that women derived significant influence through traditional roles and questioned the necessity or benefit of political participation. In her view, "by marriage a woman gains much" while she may "gradually lose in some things," and she believed that suffrage did not substantially improve conditions for women, even in countries where it was fully implemented.^[3]

Warren argued that political engagement would divert women’s "strength and vitality from the duties in which it is so much needed." She maintained that women already exercised "more and more exact influence for good on the life of the country" without entering the political sphere, which she described as “the physically trying uncertainty of politics.”^[3]

Under her leadership, the Association promoted the belief that expanding suffrage would disrupt societal harmony by removing women from their "special qualifications" and traditional contributions. The organization "necessarily held a negative position" and viewed its role as bearing witness to whether suffrage would "confirm or condemn their principle of limited suffrage."^[3]

Van Lennep also asserted that “in the rise and fall of nations women have never used nor wasted their votes, and with the same result as now.” While acknowledging some good might come from female political involvement, she contended that "the influence of women in public life brings no signal advantages with it." Instead, she emphasized maintaining "the traditional woman nature," which she described as “the conserving moral and spiritual forces” necessary “to maintain a harmonious civilization.” She concluded that societal good would only come “by nature, not by artificializing of human nature.”^[3]