Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
Businessman and social activist Inshan Ishmael will have to wait until January 31, next year, to learn the fate of his defamation lawsuit against four-time Calypso Monarch Weston “Cro Cro” Rawlins over a controversial song allegedly directed at him (Ishmael).
High Court Judge Frank Seepersad reserved his decision, which is expected to be delivered in the middle of the 2024 Carnival season, after presiding over the trial of the case at the Waterfront Judicial Centre in Port-of-Spain, yesterday.
The lawsuit relates to the song Another Sat is Outside Again, which was performed by Rawlins, this year.
Rawlins allegedly penned the song following a social media furore towards Ishmael based on his comments on the celebrations hosted by residents of Beetham Gardens after fellow resident Kareem Marcelle was called to the bar in November, last year.
Although Rawlins did not qualify for the semifinals of this year’s Calypso Monarch competition, which took place at Calypso Fiesta in Skinner Park in San Fernando on February 11, Ishmael claimed that a video of his performance during the preliminary round of the competition at the Cipriani Labour College in Valsayn was widely circulated.
While being cross-examined by Rawlins’ lawyer Gilbert Peterson, SC, Ishmael denied that he made derogatory comments about Marcelle.
Ishmael said, “I was saying we should be celebrating plenty and it should be normal. I congratulated the gentleman (Marcelle). It was positive criticism.”
Ishmael admitted that while his exact name was not used by Rawlins in the composition, a likeness was used.
“My reputation was 100 per cent damaged by this song,” he said.
Ishmael claimed that he was a fan of calypsoes as he referred to David Rudder as his favourite.
However, he accused Rawlins of singing racially divisive songs during his career.
“He has a history of songs that denigrate a particular race ... the Indian race,” he said.
He admitted that calypsonians are entitled to comment on public interest issues.
“As an activist, I also have a right to comment on public interest issues once it is not defamatory,” he said.
While being quizzed by attorney Anthony Vieira, who represented the Copyright Organisation of T&T (COTT) which was listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, Ishmael admitted that he did not have any evidence to challenge the fact that Rawlins’ performance was covered by a blanket licence granted to the National Carnival Commission (NCC).
He also admitted that he could not dispute that the song was not registered with COTT at the time Rawlins’ performance was recorded or that COTT did not have the power to edit or censor its members’ lyrics.
In his cross-examination by attorney Richard Jaggasar, Rawlins claimed that the song was not specifically directed at Ishmael but was meant to criticise citizens who share similar views.
“I am saying, why do you have these thoughts and make these exclamations as a Trinidadian,” Rawlins said.
“I was comparing and contrasting the negative things people say,” he added.
He also denied that he intended for citizens to boycott Ishmael’s businesses.
“I did not say that. I never meant that,” he said.
Asked whether he analysed Ishmael’s comments in relation to Marcelle before penning the song, Rawlins said, “The few words I heard were enough for me to write a song. I got the gist of what he was saying.”
Rawlins claimed that he was not responsible for radio advertisements for two concerts, which were aired after Justice Seepersad granted an injunction blocking him from performing segments of the song which Ishmael contended were defamatory.
In his defence, Rawlins called one witness Zeno Constance, a former lecturer in calypso history with the University of the West Indies (UWI).
Constance claimed that calypsonians are given “leeway” in terms of defamation based on the constitutional right of freedom of speech.
“Calypso is about fatigue and picong ... It is meant to tease, heckle and mock,” he said.
However, he admitted that what might have been acceptable in the 1950s would no longer be considered so today. “The art of picong is dying,” he said.
Constance used the example of calypsonians staying away from lyrics against homosexuality.
“It is no longer acceptable to picong. We have become more sensitive to people on the other side,” he said.
Constance admitted that the decline in popularity of calypso tents may be partially due to citizens’ unwillingness to tolerate divisive lyrics.
“The calypso fraternity has to work out how to keep the picong alive while not offending people,” he said, as he claimed that the calypso fraternity had the ability to censor its members as it had done in the past.
Also testifying yesterday was COTT chief executive Ayanna Belgrave-Lewis.
Belgrave-Lewis maintained that her organisation had no power to prevent Rawlins from performing the song.
“I cannot tell a performer to not perform their work ... I had no idea it was being performed at the event,” she said.
In determining the case, Justice Seepersad will have to consider whether the song is defamatory to Ishmael, whether it is covered under free speech or if Rawlins could rely on the defamation defence of qualified privilege, which is afforded to journalists.
Ishmael was also represented by Nigel Trancoso and Andre Cole, while Keith Scotland appeared alongside Peterson for Rawlins.–Derek Achong