Mike Hears Voices: Voice of Women and Lester Pearson, 1960-1963 Candace Loewen ABSTRACT Born of a sense of urgency and hope in Toronto in 1960, Voice of Women (VOW), a women's peace organization, quickly grew and gained renown as a national organization. A timely affiliation with Lester B. Pearson from 1960 to 1963 encouraged and boosted the organization in its early years. Less than one month after VOW was born, Pearson, the Leader of the Opposition, formally proposed that Canada not accept nuclear weapons. However, when Pearson changed his mind as Prime Minister in 1963 and allowed nuclear warheads for Bomarc missiles into Canada, VOW became disappointed with him and increasingly focussed on the international scene. Women's concern for a lasting universal peace has trans• in mid-1963 VOW rekindled its original zeal for international cended borders of countries and policies of governments.1 In peace after a brief but deep immersion into Canadian politics. the early 1960s a Canadian women's peace organization had hopes of helping to establish universal peace in the tense Cold VOW developed out of a collective fear for the future of the War era. "By working through women's common interests world's children and the conviction that all women have a 5 and their instinctive concern for the human family," Voice of right to peace because of their common link to motherhood. Women (VOW) sought "to help create a world climate of VOW drew upon an earlier tradition of women's organiza• understanding favourable to mutual disarmament without tions: ever since the late nineteenth century a maternal con• fear."2 VOW's emphasis on the universality of motherhood cern for others' children and the amelioration of society's ills and peace in the early 1960s linked the organization to have caused many women to look beyond the domestic world. women's peace groups throughout history. Similar to women's associations in Canada at the turn of the century, VOW members had a biological rationale for their 1 VOW quickly became international because of its message reform efforts.' Many Canadian women in 1960, like some in that women the world over, as bearers and nurturers of life, 1900, had time to be involved in women's groups, and they 5 have common concerns for world peace. The group had saw association as a means for them to effect social change. national interests as well, although not all was smooth sail• The Royal Commission on the Status of Women (1970) ing for VOW on the home front. Internally, late in 1962 the stated, of Canadian women in the 1960s, "[i]t appears to have organization suffered ideological and methodological con• been much easier for them to engage in politics indirectly flicts. These conflicts revealed a continuing concern: from the than to run for elected office." In the 1960s women rarely start, the group claimed to be nonideological and nonparti• served on policymaking bodies at any government level; san in concept and so it welcomed many different women instead, women saw their role as supportive and involved with a broad spectrum of ideas about how to "make peace." themselves in organized groups. During the 1960s, "political, In time, these women's differences over method revealed at occupational, professional, service, and civic groups seem to 6 least one deeper issue: was the group for deterrence or disar• have grown at a faster pace than the adult population." mament? Externally, VOW soon realized that it was difficult Involvement in these groups was a way for women to express to remain "apolitical" with its frequent contacts with politi• their fears, convictions and needs. It was an avenue for their cians and involvement in political matters. These women political talent, a means of effecting changes in society. became especially sensitive to this interplay of personal and political factors when they received support in 1960 from In the early 1960s the media aroused public sympathy and Lester B. Pearson, leader of the opposition Liberals. VOW stressed international and national news. But, in spite of rallied behind Pearson when he proposed his new defence public uneasiness about the nuclear threat, many people policy for Canada but then became disappointed with him nonetheless believed they could do something about it when he shifted his policy in 1963 to allow nuclear weapons through direct action; they were hopeful about "participatory on Canadian soil. Morally wounded by a trusted politician, democracy."7 Lobbying government officials and demonstra- 8 ting became common practice for many North Americans. On August 5, 1960, Pearson made an important statement All these changes—women's involvement in associations, the on defence in the House of Commons, clearly stating his hope media, and participatory democracy—affected the ways in that Canada as a "middle" power could stay out of the nuclear which some Canadians protested the acquisition of nuclear weapons field. Pearson believed he had formulated a policy arms.9 These changes certainly were instrumental in the for• which would not question Canada's continental defence mation and function of VOW. commitment nor default on Canada's obligations as a member of NATO. Unless a final collective NATO decision Like many organizations arising in response to a widely made at the highest political level of the council would agree perceived threat, VOW received much initial support but also to equip NATO forces with defensive nuclear weapons, Can• experienced growing pains. Much of VOW's early strength ada "should not even consider equipping her European was drawn from a timely affiliation with Lester B. Pearson, NATO forces with any kind of nuclear weapon," Pearson leader of the opposition Liberals until he became Prime wrote to concerned Canadians.11 Minister in April 1963. Immediately after VOW formation, Pearson made a formal statement of the new Liberal defence In essence Pearson was advocating a "new approach in the policy which opposed Canadian acquisition of nuclear wea• field of defence policy, a new orientation, a change of direc• pons. VOW quickly rallied behind Pearson and supported tion" in which Canada's defence policy would be strength• him for the next two and a half years. However, when Pearson ened "through its participation in the search for an endur• changed his policy in 1963 and agreed to accept nuclear ing peace which, after all, is the only defence policy that really warheads for the otherwise useless Bomarc missiles already means anything in the long run." In the House of Commons on Canadian soil, VOW lost faith in him. Pearson said, in part, that This event was both instrumental in challenging VOW's If we lose the peace and slide into nuclear war—because fragile foundation of late 1962 as well as forming a less "vague we are more likely to slide into nuclear war than to get and diffuse" focus for the group over time. VOW's reaction to into it in any other way—then no other form of defence is the shift in Liberal policy provides an excellent example of going to save us, essential though those forms may seem the lobbying techniques of the still young organization, the at the present time. importance of the debate over disarmament and deterrence as a means of avoiding nuclear war, and the friction within I think this change of direction which I have men• VOW created by partisan considerations. Moreover, this tioned should always have in mind the desirability...for example shows how the timing of international political getting out of nuclear armaments completely, without events uniquely influenced Canadian foreign affairs, and getting out of our collective commitments. I think that is eventually VOW and the Canadian public. Interestingly, as 12 the best role for a middle power like Canada. Pearson's stance on nuclear weapons for Canada shifted, the interpretation of the original purpose of VOW also changed. Pearson believed that his proposed defence policy would assert Canadian independence in foreign affairs policy• In 1960 both VOW and Pearson were open about their making without defaulting on Canada's international obli• support for each other. On July 28, 1960, the date of VOW gations. In fact, Canada should always be ready to muster its formation, Pearson sent a personal telegram to Josephine forces on land, sea, or in the air for international service. Davis, one of VOW's founding members, forwarding "greet• ings to all those assembled and best wishes for successful This kind of statement by a prominent politician appealed deliberations and for your work for peace and justice."10 to the sentiments of VOW members. The Leader of the Oppo• VOW sought Pearson's well-respected advice even before the sition was firmly stating his position against the acquisition organization was formed, and welcomed Pearson's wife, of a nuclear arsenal for Canada's defence weapons. More than Maryon, as an honorary sponsor with open arms once the one hundred letters from Canadian women, many of whom group was established. When rumors of a forthcoming shift wrote that they were VOW members, praised his antinuclear in Liberal defence policy—from an unclear nuclear defence stance as contributing to better futures for their children and position toa lucid platform of "no nuclear arms"—coincided children's children. Many women began their letters to Pear• with the birth of the organization, VOW threw all its support son by stating their concern as "mothers and Canadians." behind the Liberal leader. Phrases such as the following dominated letters addressed to Pearson in August, 1960: "the dangers of radiation to our children and children's children"; "because of the great anxiety for the future of our children"; "in view of the Another woman strongly felt that "the world cannot be saved extreme dangers which will come to men, women, girls and by men alone; you have tried, in your own way all of you," she boys and little children"; "thank you from thousands of wrote, and "now we the women...will try in our own way, and 17 mothers and especially from me"; "Canadian mothers will together, we will succeed." not sacrifice husbands, children and their own lives willingly to assuage U.S.