[UPDATED] Cro Cro to pay Inshan Ishmael $250,000 for slander in 2023 calypso

CALYPSONIANS do not have the liberty to make ill-informed and baseless attacks on someone’s reputation under the guise of political and social commentary.

This was the position of Justice Frank Seepersad who ruled that four-time Calypso Monarch Winston “Cro Cro” Rawlins abused his creative licence in his 2023 calypso Another Sat is Outside Again, in response to statements by Valsayn businessman Inshan Ishmael.

“It is reprehensible for a calypsonian to use the art form to defile a person’s reputation without justification and this manner of ruthless and reckless engagement cannot be condoned.

“Unfortunately, and for far too long, divisive content and lyrics which fuel racial tensions or attack portions of the population, have been performed at calypso tents and national competitions.

“This has not augured well for the viability of the art form and as a likely result, calypso tents are now virtually empty.”

Calypsoes also cannot be given any special protection or status. For this to happen, or for them to be protected by qualified privilege, there must be legislative intervention.

“Until such time that there is any legislative intervention, it is the view of this court that the work of any calypsonian must be subject to the test of responsible journalism.

“There can exist no moral, social or legal duty to defame any individual or to disenfranchise, decimate or denigrate any sector of this diverse democratic State.”

On January 29, Seepersad ordered Rawlins to pay Ishmael a total of $250,000 in damages. This sum included general damages of $215,000 (with an uplift of aggravated damages) and $35,000 in exemplary damages since, the judge said, the former was insufficient to "punish and reprimand” Rawlins.

“The first defendant and others like him who demonstrate the desire to use calypso to divide and denigrate citizens must be deterred.”

The judge said Rawlins was no ordinary calypsonian.

“He is a former calypso monarch and his compositions have a significant impact on many citizens...

“There is power in the pen and there is power in cultural expression, but calypsonians have to realise that there is also power in the purse, and people will be disinclined to part with their money if they are ridiculed or subjected to scorn and contempt.,,

“A person's reputation is not a tradable commodity, but a prized possession. It is carefully fashioned over one's lifetime and must be jealously guarded.”

He also said, “The logical intent of political satire is to make a political opponent look ridiculous and to reduce the opponent’s authority by encouraging laughter and by reminding of the politician's less pleasant or admirable aspects.

“The key distinction between satire and defamation is that satire is not meant to be believed by the audience. Satire can be a clever critique which may be humorous and/or biting, but the narrative is almost always fancifully created.”

Seepersad said freedom of expression must be balanced.

“This court will not condone or accept any position which advances a narrative that social-media comments or commentary by calypsonians are sacrosanct, or that calypsonians should be free to say whatever they feel as they ‘speak their minds,’ even if their content is divisive, derogatory, deceitful, dishonest or defamatory.”

Ishmael sued Rawlins in 2023 after video recordings of the former monarch’s performance at a TUCO competition went viral.

He claimed the calypso, performed on February 5, 2023, directly named and defamed him, and his reputation was “100 per cent” damaged by the song. He also complained of a radio interview Rawlins gave in response to the lawsuit.

Although the judge deemed some aspects of the song “fair comment,” Seepersad said there were defamatory portions which were not “satire, picong or clever critique,” but “salacious and derogative.”

“Calypso is an integral part of the cultural landscape of this republic. The art form has fashioned the way we live, think and socialise and the commentary it offers has the potential to catalyse awareness and change.

“Creative licence, however, cannot be used as a sword to engage in ill-informed or baseless attacks the purport of which is to decimate an individual's or a community’s character or integrity.”

In defence of his calypso, Rawlins said at the trial the calypso he performed at a TUCO competition did not refer to Ishmael. He said the cornerstone of calypso was to speak on issues so society could compare and contrast views and react.

Rawlins maintained calypsoes were meant to be satirical, providing criticism of public figures and ridiculing undesirable social behaviour.

Rawlins also said the calypso was in response to statements Ishmael had made about people in Laventille and Beetham.

“It was something bothering me, as an Afro-Trinidadian,” he said at the trial.

In his ruling, while the judge found some aspects of the calypso were “fair comment,” he said it would be inappropriate to apply the cover of qualified privilege to calypsoes generally or to Rawlins’s Another Sat Outside Again.

Ishmael was also criticised for statements he made that allegedly prompted the composition. The judge said the businessman’s comments were “ill-timed, offensive and inappropriate.”

“He has a recognised voice and he should use it responsibly and constructively. Bridges between divergent groups and diverse communities should be built, not broken, and when any citizen uses language which is derogatory and /or divisive, they should be called out.”

However, he said the inclusion of certain words in the calypso was “unfortunate.”

“And with evident malice, the first defendant embarked upon a scathing and caustic personal attack which impugned the claimant’s honesty and integrity.

“He mounted a vicious and venomous attack and these words were plainly and obviously defamatory.”

Seepersad also said it was alarming that the “baseless, unjustified and rancorous rant” was performed at an audition for the Calypso Monarch competition, “one of the most significant events of the Carnival calendar...

"Regrettably, the first defendant felt entitled to perform derogatory and defamatory content at this forum, but it is possible that his previous victories at this national competition emboldened him...

“He was heralded as a victor and was paid premium prize money from the public purse.”

In his ruling, the judge gave a brief history of the art form.

He said, “Calypso emerged from the social oppression and hardship which was inflicted under the colonial era.

“It was a period when there was no room for dissent and the interests of the plantocracy were paramount. Calypsonians, under the guise of providing entertainment, with the masterful use of metaphors, double-entendre, wit and satire, circumvented censorship and government control.

“As a consequence, they were able to convey news, challenge the status quo, critique public figures and comment on matters of interest or concern.

“Historically, the art form challenged the boundaries of free speech and empowered the voiceless.”

However, he said with the new era of information dissemination, “the traditional role and import of calypsoes has diminished.

“In this republic, calypsoes are no longer the primary conduit through which regular citizens and in particular those who are poor, marginalised or disenfranchised are informed of and /or discuss pertinent social issues.

“As a consequence, the role and relevance of calypso generally and the genre of political and social commentary in particular has to be reviewed, revisited and reformulated...

“The common law must be used responsibly. What would prevent persons who intend to malign or defame other citizens, from declaring or identifying that they are calypsonians and for them to carefully compose scathing and defamatory attacks which mitigate or mask any obvious malice?

“Times have changed and traditional methods of cultural expression must adapt.”

Seepersad said calypsonians who perform political and social commentary pieces could play a “pivotal role” in getting rid of the colonial shackles, but they must ensure their material is “thought-provoking, incisive, measured, balanced and devoid of malice.”

Testifying at the trial for the defence was Zeno Constance, a former lecturer in calypso history at UWI, who said Rawlins’s calypso could be considered “picong.” The judge rejected this.

Ishmael’s defamation claim also included the Copyright Organisation of TT (COTT), but that was dismissed by the judge.

On March 18, 2023, hours before Rawlins performed at a concert series in San Fernando and Port of Spain, Seepersad granted an injunction preventing the veteran calypsonian from performing the song unless it was edited to remove “offending portions.”

Representing Ishmael were Richard Jaggasar and Andre Cole. Senior Counsel Gilbert Peterson, Keith Scotland and Kareem Marcelle represented Rawlins.

Senior Counsel Anthony Vieira and Anil Maraj represented COTT.

This story was originally published with the title Cro Cro to pay Inshan Ishmael $250,000 for slander in 2023 calypso.  See original post below.

FOUR-time Calypso Monarch Weston “Cro Cro” Rawlins has been ordered to compensate Valsayn businessman Inshan Ishmael for defamatory statements in his 2023 calypso Another Sat is Outside Again.

Justice Frank Seepersad made the order on January 29.

Ishmael sued Rawlins in 2023 after video recordings of the former monarch’s performance at a TUCO competition went viral.

Ishmael claimed the calypso, performed on February 5, 2023, directly named and defamed him.

“As a result of the lyrics of the song, the claimant is now viewed as a criminal, a racist and a thief.

“The lyrics of the song directly name, identify and attack the claimant; and encourage others to attack the claimant verbally (and) physically and financially abstain from his businesses.”

Ishmael said his reputation was “100 per cent” damaged by the song.

Although the judge deemed some aspects of the song “fair comment,” Seepersad said there were defamatory portions which were not “satire, picong or clever critique,” but “salacious and derogative.”

The judge said it was reprehensible to use the artform to attack a person’s reputation.

Rawlins was ordered to pay $215,000 in general damages, with an uplift for aggravating damages. Seepersad also ordered the former calypso monarch to pay Ishmael exemplary damages of $35,000.

Ishmael’s defamation claim also included the Copyright Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago (COTT), but that was dismissed by the judge.

On March 18, 2023, hours before Rawlins performed at a concert series in San Fernando and Port of Spain, Seepersad granted an injunction preventing the veteran calypsonian from performing the song unless it was edited to remove “offending portions.”

Representing Ishmael were Richard Jaggasar, Nigel Trancuso and Linda Gopeesingh.

Senior Counsel Gilbert Peterson, Keith Scotland and Kareem Marcelle represented Rawlins. Senior Counsel Anthony Vieira and Anil Maraj represented COTT.