Calypsonian Weston “Cro Cro” Rawlins is known for pushing the boundaries with his compositions. He frequently courts controversy with hard-hitting political and social commentaries filled with acerbic lyrics that have earned him encores in the calypso tent but have often fuelled intense discussions about free speech and calls for censorship.
On the strength of four National Calypso Monarch titles, Cro Cro may consider this brash, irreverent style to be a winning formula and he, like many others in the fraternity, take it for granted the art form grants them unlimited creative licence to ridicule and slander.
However, a ruling delivered yesterday by Justice Frank Seepersad in a defamation lawsuit brought against Cro Cro by businessman Inshan Ishmael, provides legal perspectives that should get the attention of calypsonians and other social commentators.
The timing of this judgement, at the height of the Carnival season with calypso tents and competitions in full swing, provides the perfect opportunity for deeper examination of the issues highlighted in this case.
It revolves around Cro Cro’s 2023 calypso, Another Sat Is Outside Again, which Justice Seepersad deemed to have gone “beyond mere expression or fair commentary”.
For years, there has been debate about the extent to which some calypsoes breach social codes or norms of decency.
Cro Cro is not the only calypsonian who has been at the centre of those conversations and, to be fair, for as long as the art form has existed, there has been controversy. This has to do with the origins of calypso, which can be traced to 17th Century Trinidad when enslaved Africans regularly used calypso to mock the slave masters and communicate with each other.
In a bygone era, when literacy was not widespread, calypso was regarded as the poor man’s newspaper—the most effective means of communicating events and mobilising the community.
While no longer relied upon as a source of information, calypso continues to be a way to provoke thought and conversations around major issues, document events and hold leaders in various spheres to account.
The calypso classics that have stood the test do not necessarily avoid controversy, but address the issue through cleverly crafted lyrics delivered with wit and employing various literary devices, such as double entendre.
The difficulty arises when raw, unfiltered and often crass compositions filled with misinformation and deliberate untruths are passed off as picong and free speech.
As Justice Seepersad noted, calypso has “fashioned the way we live, think and socialise and the commentary it offers has the potential to catalyse awareness and change”.
He raised very valid concerns about “divisive content and lyrics which fuel racial tensions or attack portions of the population” having the effect of rendering calypso tents “virtually empty”.
There might be other factors contributing to the decline in attendance at calypso tents. However, it is a fact that, with the exception of Calypso Fiesta—the Calypso Monarch semifinals—and a few specially themed concerts, most calypso events during the season are very poorly attended.
Mr Ishmael’s lawsuit raised some important issues and exposed the very thin line between picong and defamation that some calypsonians regularly breach.
A legal precedent has been set and there is now the possibility that controversial calypso recordings and performances will be challenged in court.
The ruling, as lengthy and detailed as it is, should, therefore, be required reading for all practitioners of the art form.
