Calypso sans humanité

CALYPSONIANS have always ruffled feathers. The finest practitioners of the art know that in addition to providing entertainment, calypso, like journalism, can critique those in authority, call out injustice and report on all manner of social ills.

But Justice Frank Seepersad’s ruling in the defamation case brought by Inshan Ishmael against Weston “Cro Cro” Rawlins makes plain there is a difference between “speaking truth to power” and “speaking your mind” no matter what.

On Monday, the judge ordered Cro Cro to pay the businessman $250,000 in damages for a song he performed in February 2023.

It is unfortunate this matter went to court in the first place. Culture is something that should not be policed. There is a plausible argument that it is preferable – though not necessarily advisable – for the arts to be allowed to self-regulate. The fees surrounding a single legal letter alone can sink many small arts organisations and artists.

Calypsonians are already held in check. They sign on to implicit and explicit competition rules. They are advised by people within the fraternity. And tent managers have a role in determining what goes onstage and what does not.

None of this, though, accords with any true sense of regulation. And plainly none of this is infallible.

In fact, when it comes to calypsoes that cross the line into offensive and possibly defamatory territory, so much water has flowed under the bridge, Monday’s judgement feels almost like an anticlimax.

Still, the timing of this unprecedented ruling at the height of the Carnival season, and the quantum of damages, which includes, notably, exemplary damages, make this an era-defining development in the long story of kaiso.

While few will disagree with the judge’s finding that freedom of expression is not absolute, there is truly no limit to what a calypsonian may sing about. This is not likely to change. From Abraham Lincoln to the intricacies of packing a suitcase – you name it, a calypsonian has and will find a way to sing about it.

However, Cro Cro’s error was not in his subject (the judge was critical of the plaintiff too) but in his method.

Calypso’s origin means it is defined by double-entendre, metaphor, wit and satire. This reflects the art form’s griot history: it was a way for slaves and colonised people to speak without being censored. Thus, a calypso whose artistry is so deficient that it is deemed defamatory is arguably not a calypso at all. It is simply a vehicle for bald attack.

The irony is Cro Cro will go down in history for not only having four times been crowned Calypso Monarch. He will also be remembered, if this case is upheld, for the error of his abrasive ways: an error that helped define calypso itself.