A pressure group opposed to the anti-subversion laws has condemned the consultation process as a 'sham', saying officials had deliberately miscalculated the number of people expressing their opposition to the proposals. The Article 23 Concern Group - set up by legal and human rights experts - said that in spite of its 'clear and unambiguous' views, the government had categorised its submission as 'unclear' on Tuesday. Around 4,150 submissions, including those of the Falun Gong, were classified in this category. There were 68,115 submissions in support of the proposals and 24,832 against. Foreign nationals have been exempted from prosecution for treason, and the offence of seditious publication has been abolished. However, critics said the government had failed to address areas that would threaten rights and freedoms. Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee, the legal sector's representative in Legco and a concern group member, criticised the government for 'muddling' their views by saying they neither supported nor opposed the proposals. A statement by the group said: 'The analysis and categorising of the compendium of submissions has reflected that the entire consultation process was a sham . . . We felt amazed and dismayed at the government's arrangement.' Ms Ng said the government should not categorise the views without analysing the content. Former Bar Association chairman Ronnie Tong Ka-wah said the group's position was 'definitely opposing' the original proposal. The group is planning to conduct its own analysis of the 97,000 submissions and hundreds of articles published by the press, Ms Ng said. A signature campaign will also be launched, which is intended to show the level of public demand for the government to publish a white bill. Meanwhile, legal academic Albert Chen Hung-yee, who helped to draft the Basic Law, said the government had apparently addressed the public's concerns by giving the concessions. But he said the government should adopt the Johannesburg Principles, a standard developed by international human rights experts which requires more strident protections to be adopted. More than 20 protesters demonstrated outside government headquarters yesterday, calling for the proposals to be shelved because they impinged on civil liberties.