Watch what you say and how you say it.
This was the message sent to calypsonians by businessman and social activist Inshan Ishmael yesterday, after he won his defamation lawsuit against four-time Calypso Monarch Weston “Cro Cro” Rawlins.
Delivering a judgment yesterday morning, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad ruled that Rawlins defamed Ishmael in his 2023 song “Another Sat is Outside Again” and ordered $250,000 in compensation.
In a brief telephone interview, Ishmael said he was pleased with the outcome, which he suggested would serve as an important lesson to calypsonians.
Ishmael said: “This heralds a new wave now whereby calypsonians would have to watch what they say and how they say it.”
He suggested that the case was not intended to punish calypsonians but rather to improve the art form.
“Basically, what we have done is pave the way for calypsoes, real calypsoes, the real art form, to enter back into the calypso tents and for people to feel comfortable,” Ishmael said.
He noted that while public figures had their reputations unfairly damaged by calypsonians in the past, he was the first to successfully pursue legal action.
“I have always said that my father’s name is one that I would protect from birth to death and by the judgment today, I have done so with my team,” he said.
Rawlins penned the song last year following social media furore towards Ishmael, based on his comments on the celebrations hosted by Beetham Gardens residents, after fellow resident Kareem Marcelle was called to the bar in November, 2022.
Although Rawlins did not qualify for the semifinals of last year’s Calypso Monarch competition, Ishmael claimed a video of his performance during the preliminary round of the competition at the Cipriani Labour College in Valsayn was widely circulated on social media.
In determining the case, Justice Seepersad had to consider whether calypsonians are protected by the defamation defence of qualified privilege.
Justice Seepersad noted that the defence only applies where there is a duty to publish potentially defamatory material and a public interest in receiving it. He noted that it may have been applicable when the art form emerged during the colonial era.
“Calypsonians, under the guise of providing entertainment, with the masterful use of metaphors, double-entendre, wit and satire, circumvented censorship and government control,” he said.
However, he noted that the role of calypso has evolved with the popularisation of social media.
“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,” he said.
“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.”
Ruling that the defence did not apply, Seepersad said: “If the society holds the view that calypso should be afforded some special status and that it should be protected by qualified privilege, then the legislature must respond accordingly.”
Seepersad stated that the calypso was clearly directed at Ishmael despite Rawlins’ claims that he sought to prevent defamation by singing “Imchan Imchelle” in the song. He noted that Rawlins admitted the song was about Ishmael when he was interviewed about it after Ishmael threatened legal action.
“This obvious similarity of a name, which is by no means common, when considered against the other portions of the calypso, which included references to the comments which the claimant made in relation to a lawyer from the Beetham and the sale of car parts in the Bamboo, results in a circumstance where any reasonable member of the society who heard the calypso, would likely conclude that the calypso referred to the claimant,” he said.
In determining whether Rawlins’ lyrics were defamatory, Seepersad noted that Ishmael’s initial comments were ill-timed, offensive and inappropriate.
While Seepersad noted that Rawlins was free to use Ishmael’s conduct as the subject of his calypso, he noted it must adhere with the principles of fair comment.
“Unfortunately, and with evident malice, the first defendant (Rawlins) 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,” he said.
Seepersad expressed concern over the fact that Rawlins was seeking to enter the song into a State-sponsored national competition, as he suggested Rawlins was possibly emboldened by winning the competition in 1988, 1990, 1996 and 2007.
“Although he previously faced some measure of public disquiet, angst and/or criticism for alleged divisive and discriminatory content, he was never called upon to justify his previous compositions but he was heralded as a victor and was paid premium prize money from the public purse,” he said.
Seepersad pointed out that in his evidence, Rawlins’ expert witness Zeno Constance, a former lecturer in calypso history with the University of the West Indies (UWI), admitted that divisive lyrics by some calypsonians partially contributed to the decline of the art form.
“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,” Seepersad said.
As part of his decision in the case, Justice Seepersad dismissed the action against the Copyright Organisation of T&T (COTT), of which Rawlins is a member.
“It is evident that COTT has no mandate or authority to regulate the content of any artiste and the body simply ensures that royalties due to the artiste are paid,” he said.
Rawlins did not answer several calls made to his cellphone yesterday. However, a source close to his legal team said an appeal based on several grounds, including constitutionality, will be pursued.
Ishmael was represented by Richard Jaggasar, Nigel Trancoso and Andre Cole, while Gilbert Peterson, SC, Keith Scotland and Kareem Marcelle represented Rawlins.
COTT was represented by Anthony Viera, SC, Anil Maraj and Nicole de Verteuil-Milne.