I was going to ask if Bavarians happened due to oral sex.
That would really suck.
Same thing with French oversea territories. For instance, until recently, in Mayotte, polygamy was legal (*) and civil cases could be adjudicated according to Shariah law (Mayotte became an oversea “departement” in 2011 so now it’s legally part of France proper and the law is the same as in mainland France).
Territories like New Caledonia and Polynesia have a very wide autonomy outside matters of defence and foreign policy, Wallis and Futuna have kings, etc…
(*) A former girlfriend, who worked at the ministry of oversea territories and departements, amongst other things, rewrote projects of statutes to be voted by the parliament in order that the situation of polygamous families would be covered by family law statutes while making sure that the word “polygamy” (or too obvious references)would never appear.
Hong Kong and Macau have way different laws than the rest of China, fwiw.
Hence the parentheses around ‘oral’ in my original post.
I’m sure you know this stuff better than I do, but I have seen websites from girls who do ‘outcall’ dates that specifically state their services are limited in Bavaria and any request for ‘normal service’ in Bavaria will mean the end of a possible arrangement.
I don’t know the details either. But the law (“Hygieneverordnung”, i. e. “hygiene code”) is specifically geared towards businesses that run brothels. The Bavarian government was sued in an administrative court over the law by a company that operates a brothel and the law was upheld.
Maybe it’s a sales point for some ladies of the night ("… offer you the kind of sex that is illegal in Bavaria…").
That seems to be the more frequent system in Western federal/pseudo-federal states: criminal law being centralized (though often enforced and tried at the local level), civil/administrative law being devolved.
IMO colonies really don’t count, it’s pretty much the expected historic standard that colonial law is different than metropolitan law.
The existence of Scottish Law being totally separate from English Law is **nothing **to do with devolution or the Scottish Parliament or substantial retained powers. It is guaranteed under the terms of the Acts of Union back in 1706 and 1707.
Acts of the Parliament can create unified legal statutes applying in both England and Scotland, particularly when conformity was seen as necessary for pragmatic reasons (such as the Sale of Goods Act 1893). Legislation passed by the pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland still has legal effect in Scotland, though the number of statutes that have not been repealed are limited.
In many cases separate Acts applicable to Scotland have to be passed, whether in Westminster or Edinburgh, to conform to Scottish Law. In most other cases separate Articles ensuring the legislation works within Scottish law as intended have to be included.
Well, yes, I should imagine that one tenant could not occupy both England and Scotland simultaneously. 
(I think you mean "basic legal tenets)
Well, you just hit me out of the park there, fella.
Whoop.
And even when the criminal law is uniform, the enforcement (which is the job of the provinces) isn’t necessarily. Quebec could not get a conviction of an abortion doctor and abortion was effectively legal here before it was accepted in the rest of Canada. Recently, the federal government tightened up its drug laws imposing long mandatory minimum sentences for possession of pot. Quebec (which hadn’t been enforcing the laws very seriously anyway) announced that they would cease prosecuting the laws on possession. Among other reasons they gave was that they didn’t have the money to build and operate a new prison network. BC has a safe-needle program for drug users. Theoretically, all the users should be prosecuted, but obviously they are not being arrested. The federal government tried to shut it down, but a court would not let them.
Another matter is that from time to time, a provincial court will find that a piece of federal law violates the (federal) Constitution, theoretically throughout the country, but of course the ruling only has effect in the provincial court’s jurisdiction.
For example, in Ontario, the criminal law that provides a separate age of consent for anal sex has been found to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, in violation of the Charter of Rights (part of the Constitution), so that part of the Criminal Code cannot be applied in Ontario.
For another example, the definition of marriage is a matter of federal jurisdiction. However, in 2003-4, courts in Ontario, BC, and Quebec found the federal definition of marriage unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in those provinces. A subsequent ruling in Yukon, instead of going through all the argument of finding the law unconstitutional again, simply pointed to the ON, BC, and QC decisions as meaning that the inclusive definition was settled law, and then ruled that that should be given effect in Yukon. Similar (and uncontested) decisions followed in all but four provinces and territories before Parliament passed the Civil Marriage Act in 2005.
I’m puzzled by this, Hari, because the provinces don’t prosecute drug laws. Canada’s drug law is a federal statute (the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act), which is not part of the Criminal Code and therefore not administered by the provinces, so I don’t see the provincial involvement in the first place. Could you point me to more information on this issue?
Although the program is administered by provincial/municipal officials, it is licensed under the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as an experimental health treatment facility, and therefore no offence was being committed by the users and staff. The federal government tried to revoke the licence, but the courts held that the attempted revocation was contrary to the purpose of the licensing provision: Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134