In many ways this is just about language, but I think language can be helpful or unhelpful. I would suggest that, where the law arbitrates and decides to limit what I can do, I do not in fact have a right.
The idea of a moral right only stands if you can appeal to some external authority to determine what is moral. Otherwise, you have to appeal to your own judgment (which is a recipe for conflict) or to the collective view of the population (which is normally expressed in law anyway, and so not different from a legal right).
Your last sentence demonstrates the problems with appealing to your own judgment. Given that the government was voted in, there is likely to be a substantial proportion of the population who do not share your view. In any case, since our laws have in fact been made by governments of various colours over many years, all of which have, I suspect, avoided listening to advice that they found uncomfortable, it's not clear why our current body of law would be any worse as a representation of our rights than it has been at any time in the recent past.
Again, it's helpful to think of responsibilities alongside rights. I have the qualified right to a free education, the NHS and the roads, and in return I undertake my responsibilities to pay taxes to fund those things. I say qualified right because I'm not sure that these things could be held to be basic rights in any sense; they are excellent things that I value, and that our society collectively chooses to provide to its citizens and, whilst I hope they won't, society could legitimately decide to take them away at any time.